^^CFP; 


Divi$ion..3SI  255" 
Section...>/A.l?«' 

N.'r 


{)mcfelcp  (Gilbert  iHitcbell 


THE  WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM,  According  to 
Genesis  I. -XI.  With  an  Introduction  to  the  Penta- 
teuch.    Large  crown  8vo,  ^1.75,  net. 

AMOS:  An  Essay  in  Exegesis.  Large  crown  8vo, 
J1.50. 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY, 
Boston  and  New  Yokk. 


THE  WORLD 
BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

ACCORDING   TO   GENESIS    I.-XI. 

WITH   AN 

INTRODUCTION   TO    THE   PENTATEUCH 


H.   G.   MITCHELL 

Professor  in  Boston  University 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY 

(Cbe  aitoerjside  prcpg,  CambriDoe 

IQOI 


COPYRIGHT,    1901,    BY    H.    G.    MITCHF.LL 
ALL  RIGHTS   RESERVED 


Published  October,  iqoi 


PREFACE 

In  a  recent  issue  of  a  popular  religious  weekly  ap- 
peared the  following  :  — 

"  Kindly  give  the  name  of  some  book  on  Genesis  which  treats  it 
from  the  view-point  of  modern  scholarship." 

This  item  indicates  a  demand  for  commentaries  on 
Genesis  written  in  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  most 
recent  researches  into  its  age  and  structure.  The  de- 
mand is  really  widespread,  as  any  one  in  my  position  can 
testify ;  but  thus  far  little  has  been  done  in  England  or 
America  to  meet  it.  The  editor  to  whom  the  above  appeal 
was  made,  therefore,  recommended  a  translation  of  Dill- 
mann's  work,  which,  though  very  valuable  to  those  who 
are  prepared  to  appreciate  it,  is  too  large,  too  learned, 
and  too  expensive  for  most  students  of  the  Bible.  This 
state  of  things  ought  not  to  continue.  A  desire  to  do 
what  I  can  to  remedy  it  is  my  excuse  for  putting  into 
print  the  following  pages. 

The  first  part  of  my  book  is  devoted  to  the  Penta- 
teuchal  question,  which  I  have  tried  to  discuss  with  per- 
fect candor,  and  settle,  for  myself  as  well  as  my  reader, 
in  accordance  with  the  evidence  in  the  case.  In  the 
comments  of  the  second  part  my  object  has  been  simply 
to  interpret  the  text  of  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis in  the  light  of  the  theory  adopted.     The  ideas  thus 


iv  PREFACE 

presented  are  therefore  not  mine,  but  those  which  in  a 
given  case  the  author  seemed  to  me  to  have  intended  to 
convey.  If  I  have  missed  his  meaning,  I  will  cheerfully 
acknowledge  my  error  and  make  any  necessary  correc- 
tions. 

There  are  doubtless  those  who,  at  first,  will  feel  that 
some  of  my  results  threaten  their  faith  in  the  Scriptures. 
I  can  assure  them  that  their  anxiety  is  groundless,  as 
they  will  discover,  if  they  will  consider  :  (/)  that  the 
essential  element  in  these  chapters  is  not  the  things 
narrated,  but,  as  I  have  more  than  once  elsewhere  inti- 
mated, the  religious  ideas  underlying  them ;  and  {2)  that 
these  ideas  derive  much  of  their  importance  to  us  from 
the  fact  that  they  represent  stages  more  or  less  remote 
in  the  process  by  which  God  prepared  bis  people,  and 
through  them  the  world,  for  the  supreme  revelation  of 
himself  in  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

A  few  words  with  reference  to  some  of  the  details  of 
my  method. 

In  the  matter  of  proper  names  it  at  first  seemed  to  me 
best  to  follow  the  English  Version ;  but,  at  the  risk  of 
being  thought  pedantic,  I  finally  decided  in  the  transla- 
tion and  the  comments  to  give  them  forms  that  would 
represent  their  original  pronunciation  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible with  English  characters.  The  scheme  adopted  is 
that  most  in  vogue  among  Semitic  scholars.  Those  who 
are  not  acquainted  with  it  will  note :  that  '  represents  a 
letter  practically  silent,  and  *  one  whose  pronunciation 
resembles  that  of  a  forcible  '>;  that  //,  /,  and  s  (with  dots 
under  them)  should  also  be  strongly  articulated ;  that  the 


PREFACE  Y 

pronunciation  of  s  docs  not  differ  from  that  of  s ;  and 
that  bJi,  dJi,  pJi,  and  tJi  have  the  sounds  of  v,  tJi  in  thisyf^ 
and  tJi  in  tliin^  respectively,  while  the  //  in  gli  and  kJi  calls 
for  a  slight  aspiration  of  the  preceding  letter. 

The  reader  should  observe  that,  in  this,  as  in  my 
previous  books,  where  other  authors  are  cited  I  use  see 
and  compare  in  different  senses.  Thus  See  Dillmann  is 
intended  to  indicate  that  this  author  favors  the  view 
expressed,  but  Comp.  Dillmanny  that  he  holds  a  different 
opinion. 

In  grammatical  matters  I  should  have  been  glad  to 
make  use  of  the  last  English  edition  of  Kautzsch's  Gese- 
nius ;  but,  since  the  book  is  beyond  the  means  of  most 
students,  I  felt  obliged  to  cite  the  second  American 
edition,  although  it  is  a  very  faulty  translation. 

I  have  undertaken  in  this  volume  to  discuss  only  eleven 
chapters.  I  may  later  finish  the  book  of  Genesis,  unless 
some  one  better  qualified  for  the  work  anticipates  me. 
Meanwhile  those  who  wish  to  continue  their  studies  in 
this  direction  will  find  help  especially  in  the  commen- 
taries of  Dillmann  and  Delitzsch,  and  such  works  as 
Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
vient  and  Bacon's  Ge7iesis  of  Genesis  or  the  Oxford 
Hexatench.  Those  who  read  German  should  also  consult 
the  commentaries  of  Holzinger  and  Gunkel.* 

*  The  introduction  to  Gunkel's  book  has  recently  appeared  in 
English. 


CONTENTS 

The  Pentateuch i 

Names  and  Divisions i 

Traditional  Authorship 4 

Structure  and  Composition 16 

Age  of  Documents  and  Order  of  Compilation      .         .         •  S*^) 

Analysis  of  Gex.  I.-XI 68 

Translation  and  Comments 73 

Translation 73 

Comments 95 

Appendix 2S1 

Indexes 289 


THE   WORLD    BEFORE   ABRAHAM 


THE  PENTATEUCH 
I.     Names  and  Divisions 


The  Pentateuch  corresponds  to  the  first  of  the  three 
parts  into  which  the  Jews  divide  their  Scriptures.  Its 
Hebrew  title  is  Law*  In  the  later  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  it  is  called,  TJie  Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahiuch 
(2  Chr.  xvii,  9),  The  Book  of  the  Law  of  God  (Neh.  viii. 
18),  The  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses  (Neh.  viii.  i),  The 
Book  of  the  Law  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  15),  TJie  Book  of  Moses 
(2  Chr.  XXV.  4  ;  comp.  2  Kgs.  xiv.  6),  The  Law  of  Yah- 
weh  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  3),  The  Law  of  God  (Neh.  x.  29/28),  The 
Law  of  Moses  (2  Chr.  xxiii.  18),  and  finally,  as  above. 
The  Law  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  19).!  The  names  given  to  it 
in  the  New  Testament  are,  The  Book  of  the  Law  (Gal. 
iii.  10),  The  Book  of  Moses  (Mar.  xii.  26),  The  Lazu  of 
the  Lord^  i  e.y  Yahweh  (Lu.  ii.  23),  TJie  Law  of  J\ loses 

*  Tll^n.  The  title  of  the  other  two  parts  respectively  are : 
D'^S'^33,  rrophets,  for  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah,  Jer- 
emiah, Ezekiel,  and  the  Minor  Prophets;  and  C^iriD,  IVritim^s^ 
for  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Eccle- 
siastes,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles. 

t  The  later  books  only  are  cited  because,  as  will  be  shown  in  the 
proper  connection,  the  "  law  "  to  which  they  refer  probably  is, 
while  that  referred  to  in  the  earlier  books  certainly  is  not,  the 
Pentateuch, 


2  THE    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

(Lu.  ii.  22),  Tlic  Law  (Mat.  xii.  5),  and  Moses  (Lu.  xvi.  29). 
The  modern  Hebrew,  or,  strictly  speaking,  the  Aramaic, 
names  are,  TJlc  Five  Fifths  of  the  Law,  The  Fifths  of 
the  Book  of  the  Law,  The  Five  Fifths,  and  The  Fifths* 
The  name  Pentateuch,  from  the  Greek,  means  five-vol- 
ume,! and  is  therefore  substantially  the  equivalent  of 
these  Aramaic  designations. 

The  five  fifths  of  which  the  Pentateuch  is  composed 
are  designated  in  Hebrew  by  one  or  more  of  the  words 
with  which  they  respectively  begin.  Thus,  the  first  has 
for  its  title  the  equivalent  of  In  the  beginning  ;  J  the  sec- 
ond, of  These  are  the  7iames,\  or  simply  iV<7w^J ;  ||  the 
third,  of  And  called ;  ^  the  fourth,  of  And  said,**  or,  In 
the  desert ;  ff  and  the  fifth,  of  These  are  the  words,  \\ 
or.  Words.  §§  The  Jews  also  called  these  books  by 
names  indicating  their  order  or  their  contents.  Thus, 
the  second  is  sometimes  designated  as  The  second  fiftJi ; 
the  third,  as  TJie  law  of  the  priests,  or.  The  book  of  the 
priests  ;  the  fourth,  as  The  fifth  of  7iiimbers ;  and  the 
fifth,  after  Deu.  xvii.  18,  as  The  copy  of  the  law\\  The 
English  names  are  derived  from  the  Greek  ;  but,  except 


*  Furst,  KA  T,  6. 

t  The  original,  TiVTir^vxos,  is  properly  an  adjective  modifying 
3i/3A.o5  understood ;  hence  it  is  feminine,  rarely  masculine.  See 
also  the  Latin  Pentateuchus  and  Pentateuchum. 

X  n^tt7S-i>  §  r\yaw  nbs-  II  ny^w- 

If  s-ip>v  **  nn-r>>  tt  nsinn- 

§§  C^nni.  The  same  means  are  employed  by  the  Jews  to  desig- 
nate smaller  divisions  of  the  Pentateuch.  Thus,  the  third  lesson 
in  Genesis  (xii.-xviii.)  is  referred  to  as  Get  thee  {-^  -|^),  because 
these  words  occur  in  xii.  i.  See  also  IVIar.  xii.  26.  The  Baby- 
lonians and  Assyrians  used  the  same  method  in  naming  their 
books.     See  Boscawen,  BM,  40. 

jlll   Furst,  A'/^T;  5f. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  3 

in  the  case  of  that  of  Exodus,  they  may  easily  be  traced 
to  Hebrew  equivalents. 

It  has  become  the  fashion  among  Old  Testament 
scholars  to  follow  the  lead  of  Bleek  in  connecting  with 
the  first  five  books  the  sixth,  thus  making  the  first  divi- 
sion of  the  Hebrew  canon  a  hexateuch.  The  reasons 
given  are,  that  the  book  of  Joshua  shares  the  literary 
peculiarities  of  those  preceding,  but  especially  that  they 
are  incomplete  without  it.*  These  reasons,  however,  are 
not  conclusive.  In  the  first  place,  if,  as  some  of  the 
critics  claim,!  the  great  work  beginning  with  Genesis 
included  not  only  Joshua,  but  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings, 
a  hexateuch  is  as  little  warranted  by  literary  character- 
istics as  a  pentateuch.  Secondly,  the  completeness  or 
incompleteness  of  the  Pentateuch  is  a  matter  of  stand- 
point ;  for,  as  Bleek  himself  says,  J  although,  as  a  histor- 
ical work,  it  requires  to  be  supplemented  by  Joshua,  as 
a  Mosaic  law-book  it  has  in  Deuteronomy  an  entirely 
appropriate  conclusion.  That  the  Jews  emphasized  the 
legal  rather  than  the  historical  aspect  of  these  books  is 
indicated  by  the  name  that  they  gave  to  them.  In  this 
aspect  they  were  justified  in  treating  them  as  a  separate 
division  of  their  Scriptures,  and  the  modern  scholar, 
although  he  admits  their  literary  and  historical  relation 
to  the  book  or  books  that  follow,  may  imitate  their 
example. 

The  book  of  Joshua  may  be  treated  apart  from  those 
composing  the  Pentateuch,  but  the  latter  cannot  be 
regarded  as  distinct  entities.  They  are  all  closely  related 
parts  of  a  whole  which  would  be  marred  if  either  of  them 

*  Driver, /ZOT^,  103;  Holziiiger,  AV/,  4. 

t  Budde,   RS,    268  f . ;    Moore,  Jud .,  xxv.   ff . ;  comp.   Cornill, 
EA  7;  93  f. ;  Kittel,  HH,  ii.  14  ff. ;  Wildeboer,  LOV,  168  ff. 
X  EAT,  i25(Eng.  i.  343). 


4  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

were  wanting.  To  this  whole,  Genesis  may  be  consid- 
ered an  introduction,  and  Deuteronomy  a  conclusion. 
The  so  -  called  middle  books,  —  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and 
Numbers,  —  which  are  more  intimately  related  to  one 
another  than  either  of  the  others  to  them,  constitute  the 
body  of  the  work.  These  facts,  whatever  may  be  the 
explanation  of  them,  require  that  the  Pentateuch  be  re- 
garded as  an  isagogical  unit,  and  it  will  be  so  treated  in 
the  discussion  that  is  to  follow. 

II.     Traditional   Authorship 

There  are  parts  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  to  which  the 
names  of  their  real  or  supposed  authors  are  attached. 
This  is  the  case  with  the  prophetical,  and  some  of  the 
other  books.*  The  English  reader  might  be  led  to  sup- 
pose that  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  belong  to  this 
class,  since  in  the  Revised,  as  well  as  in  the  Authorized, 
Version  each  of  them  is  provided  with  a  title  in  which  it 
is  distinctly  attributed  to  Moses.f  This,  however,  is  not 
the  fact.  The  Hebrew  title  in  each  case  is  the  bare 
name,  and  this  is  an  addition  to  the  original  not  found  in 
manuscripts.  If,  therefore,  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch, 
neither  he  nor  any  other  for  him  took  the  usual  method 
of  securing  credit  for  his  work  :  in  other  words,  the 
Pentateuch,  like  all  the  rest  of  the  historical  books, 
except  Nehemiah,  is  an  anonymous  production. 

What  does  the  Pentateuch  itself  say  with  reference  to 
its  authorship  t  All  agree  that  there  is  nothing  in  Gene- 
sis on  the  subject ;  but  it  has  been  asserted  that  the 
middle   books  claim   to   have  been  written  by  Moses.f 

*  See  Jerenii.ih,  Proverbs,  Nehemiali,  etc. 

t  That  of  the  first,  e.  i/.,  reads,  The  first  book  of  Moses,  com- 
monly called  Genesis. 

X  Keil,  EAT,  165  ;  Harman,  IJ/S,  1 1  7  ff.  ;  Green,  HCJ\  36  ff. 


THE   PENTATEUCH  5 

The  passages  quoted  in  support  of  this  opinion,  however, 
when  closely  examined,  will  be  found  to  have  less  force 
than  is  attributed  to  them.  When,  e.  g.,  as  is  so  often 
the  case,  especially  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers,*  Yahweh 
is  said  to  have  spoken  to  Moses  and  communicated  to  him 
this  or  that  law,  such  a  statement  is  not  proof  that  Moses 
himself  put  into  writing  even  the  law  in  question,  much 
less  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  entire  work  in  which  it 
has  been  preserved.  There  is  nothing  in  the  language 
used  forbidding  the  supposition  that  laws  thus  introduced 
were  transmitted  orally  for  centuries  and  finally  incorpo- 
rated into  the  Pentateuch  by  an  exilic  compiler.  There 
is  not  much  more  force  in  the  passages  in  which  Moses  is 
represented  as  having  actually  committed  certain  things 
to  writing.  He  doubtless  made  a  record  of  the  attack  of 
Amalek  upon  Israel  and  the  sentence  pronounced  upon 
them  in  consequence,  although  the  command  to  do  so 
alone  appears  in  the  history  of  the  Exodus  (Ex.  xvii.  14).! 
He  is  expressly  said  to  have  written  "all  the  words 
of  Yahweh  "  on  the  occasion  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai 
(Ex.  xxiv.  4),  and  a  similar  statement  is  made  with  refer- 
ence to  the  stations  at  which  the  Hebrews  halted  on 
their  march  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  (Num.  xxxiii.  2). 
The  meaning  of  Ex.  xxxiv.  28  is  doubtful,  but  there  can 
be  n©  doubt  that  the  preceding  verse  warrants  one  in 
supposing  that,  according  to  the  author,  the  terms  of 
Yahweh's  covenant,  just  recited  (14-26),  were  preserved 

^  *  See  Lev.  i.  i  ;  iv.  i,  etc. 

t  The  original  has  the  definite  article  before  the  word  for 
"book";  but  this  fact  does  not  warrant  one  in  insisting  that  the 
book  in  question  was  one  in  which  Moses  was  accustomed  to 
record  whatever  took  place,  for  in  Num.  v.  23  the  same  expression 
is  used  of  a  book  provided  for  a  specific  occasion.  See  Ges.  §  126, 
4,  R ;  comp.  Green,  HC1\  38. 


6  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

in  writing  by  the  law-giver.*  One  can,  however,  grant 
all  that  these  passages  assert  or  imply  and  still  consis- 
tently reject  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  ; 
since  they  require  one  to  believe  only  that  four  or  five 
chapters  of  Exodus  and  Numbers  reproduce  with  more 
or  less  accuracy  documents  from  the  hand  of  Moses.  If 
they  indicate  anything  with  reference  to  the  whole  of 
which  they  now  form  a  part,  it  is  that  the  work  was  com- 
piled from  various  sources  by  some  other  writer.  This 
is  also  the  natural  inference  from  the  use  of  the  third 
person  wherever  Moses  appears  in  the  narrative,  and  the 
irresistible  impression  produced  by  the  praise  bestowed 
upon  him.  See  Ex.  xi.  3  ;  Num.  xii.  3.  Thus  far,  there- 
fore, the  evidence  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  Hobbes'  aver- 
ment,! that  the  Pentateuch  is  a  book  about,  rather  than 
by,  the  hero  of  the  Exodus. 

There  are  statements  in  Deuteronomy  which  are  in- 
terpreted as  teaching  that  Moses  wrote,  not  only  this 
book,  but  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch.  Among  them 
are  xxxi.  9  and  24-26.  The  former  says  "  Moses  wrote 
this  law  and  delivered  it  to  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi, 
who  bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahweh,  and  to  the 


*  The  natural  subject  of  the  verb  wrote  in  v.  28  is  Moses  ;  but 
the  fact  that  the  words  written  are  described  as  "  the  ten  words  " 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  author  had  in  mind  the  decalogue  of 
chapter  xx.  and  its  inscription  on  stone  by  Yahweh  himself.  See 
xxxi.  18;  xxxii.  16.  The  difficulty  is  resolved  by  supposing  that 
the  original  author  of  the  chapter  intended  to  represent  the  words 
of  the  covenant  in  vv.  14-26  as  engraved  by  Moses  on  tables  pr». 
pared  for  the  purpose,  and  that  the  present  ambiguity  of  the  text 
was  produced  by  the  addition  of  the  phrase  "  the  ten  words  "  to  v. 
28  to  bring  this  passage  into  harmony  with  preceding  statements 
to  the  effect  that  it  was  the  words  thundered  from  Sinai  which 
were  inscribed  on  these  tables.     See  Bacon,  TTE,  158. 

f  Leviathan,  xxxiii. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  7 

elders ; "  the  latter,  "  It  came  to  pass  when  Moses  had 
finished  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book  until 
they  were  completed,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Le- 
vites  who  bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahweh,  say- 
ing, Take  this  book  of  the  law  and  place  it  at  the  side 
of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahweh  your  God,  that  it 
may  be  there  as  a  witness  against  thee."*  The  weight  of 
these  passages,  of  course,  depends  upon  the  meaning  of 
the  phrases  **  this  law  "  and  "  this  book  of  the  law."  They 
are  both  of  comparatively  frequent  occurrence  in  Deuter- 
onomy ;  t  hence,  if  they  are  used  with  anything  like 
uniformity,  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  discover  their  im- 
port. Now,  the  meaning  of  *'  this  law  "  is  clear  enough 
in  the  first  case  in  which  it  is  used,  but  in  iv.  8  it  is  abso- 
lutely unmistakable.  Moses  there  describes  the  law  that 
he  has  in  mind  as  "  this  law  which  I  set  before  you  this 
day,"  i.  e.  the  code  which  he  is  on  the  point  of  promulgat- 
ing. But  "the  law  which  Moses  set  before  the  children 
of  Israel,"  according  to  iv.  44,  commences  with  v.  i, 
although  "the  statutes  and  judgments"  are  first  intro- 
duced by  xii.  I  ;  and  (according  to  xxviii.  69/xxix.  i), 
concludes  with  the  twenty-eighth  chapter.  This  is  the 
law  to  which  external  or  internal  reference  is  made 
throughout  Deuteronomy.  "This  book  of  the  law," 
therefore,  must  be  the  copy  of  this  legislation  deposited 
with  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  In  addition  to  this  "  book  " 
Moses   is    said    (xxxi.  22)    to   have   left   in   writing   the 

*  Keil  {JOT  i.  160)  claims  that  in  these  passages  the  composition 
of  the  entire  law,/,  e.  the  Pentateuch,  is  so  clearly  attributed  to 
Moses  that  this  doctrine  must  prevail.  See  also  Green,  HCF,  37  • 
Harm  an,  IHS,  1 19. 

t  "This  law"  occurs  i.  5  ;  iv.  8  (44,  "  this  is  the  law  ");  xvii.  18, 
19;  xxvii.  3,  8,  26;  xxviii.  58;  xxix.  26/29;  xxxi.  9,  11,  12,  24; 
xxxii.  46:  "this  book  of  the  law,"  xxix.  20/21  ;  xxx,  10;  x.xxi.  26. 
The  latter  in  xxviii.  61  becomes  '*the  book  of  this  law." 


8  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

"song"  that  he  was  inspired  to  sing  just  before  he  was 
taken  from  his  people.  These  two  writings  are  all  that 
Deuteronomy  ascribes  to  him.  There  remain  several 
discourses  concerning  which  it  is  stated  only  that  he 
delivered  them.  Moreover  there  are  fifty-one  verses  and 
parts  of  sixteen  others,  which,  being  purely  editorial, 
could  hardly  be  attributed  to  the  lawgiver.  In  the  case 
of  Deuteronomy,  therefore,  as  in  that  of  the  three  pre- 
ceding books,  the  internal  evidence  warrants  one  in  affirm- 
ing, at  the  most,  only  that  the  author  of  it,  whoever  he 
was,  incorporated  into  his  work  documents,  independent, 
be  it  observed,  of  those  in  Exodus  and  Numbers,  which 
he  believed  to  be  of  Mosaic  origin. 

The  testimony  of  the  books  called  by  the  Jews  "  For- 
mer Prophets,"  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings, 
agrees  with  that  of  Deuteronomy.  Joshua  refers  to 
a  law  given  by  Moses,*  and  by  him  put  into  the  form  of 
a  book  for  the  benefit  of  Israel,  f  Still,  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  this  book  was  the  Pentateuch,  for 
all  the  references  to  it  are  in  Deuteronomic  language, 
and  viii.  30  ff.,  where  the  ceremony  at  Ebal  is  described, 
proves  conclusively  that  it  contained  only  "  the  law  "  of 
Deuteronomy,  f  The  only  passage  in  Judges  bearing  on 
the  question  at  issue  (iii.  4)  refers  to  commandments 
given  by  Yahweh  "through  Moses,"  but  neglects  to  in- 
form  the   reader  whether   they  were   oral   or  written. § 

*  i.  7;  xxii.  5.  f  i.  8;  viii.  31  f.,  34;  xxiii.  6. 

X  See  Deu.  xxvii.  2  ff.  Jos.  xxiv.  26  cannot  be  cited  agafnst  this 
conclusion ;  for  if,  as  is  doubtless  the  case,  "  the  book  of  the  law 
of  God"  there  mentioned  was  not  the  kernel  of  Deuteronomy, 
there  is  as  little  reason  for  believing  it  to  have  been  the  Penta- 
teuch;  and,  whatever  it  was,  it  is  not  attributed  to  Moses. 

§  The  English  version  has  "by  the  hand  of  Moses,"  which  is 
literal  but  misleading;  since,  as  appears  from  Ex.  ix.  35,  the 
Hebrew  expression  thus  translated  simply  denotes  agency. 


THE   PENTATEUCH  9 

The  phraseology  used,  however,  makes  it  evident  that, 
as  in  Joshua,  the  Deuteronomic  law  was  in  the  mind  of 
the  writer.  In  the  books  of  Samuel  there  are  no  refer- 
ences to  Moses  as  a  lawgiver,*  but  in  the  books  of 
Kings  there  are  several.  All  of  them,  like  those  that 
have  preceded,  point  to  Deuteronomy  as  the  law  that 
their  author  (or  authors)  had  in  view.  This  is  clearly 
enough  the  case  in  i  Kgs.  viii.  53  and  56  and  2  Kgs. 
xviii.  6  and  12  ;  but  more  so  in  i  Kgs.  ii.  3  and  2  Kgs. 
xxi.  8.f  In  2  Kgs.  xiv.  6,  Deu.  xxiv.  16  is  quoted  as 
a  statute  from  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  Finally, 
the  book  found  by  Hilkiah  the  priest,  and  called  "  the 
law  of  Moses "  (2  Kgs.  xxiii.  25),  betrays  its  identity 
with  some  form  of  Deuteronomy,  not  only  in  the  names 
given  to  it,  but  by  its  influence  on  the  language  of  the 
historian,  and  especially  on  the  policy  of  King  Josiah.J 

*  The  only  passage  that  one  would  be  tempted  to  quote  in  this 
connection  is  i  Sam.  x.  25  ;  but  here,  as  in  Ex.  xvii.  14,  to  write  in 
a,  literally  thc^  book  means  neither  more  nor  less  than  to  put  into 
writing. 

t  On  I  Kgs.  viii.  53,  see  Deu.  iv.  19  f. ;  on  v.  56,  Deu.  xii.  9 ;  on 
2  Kgs.  xviii.  6,  Deu.  xiii.  5/4;  on  v.  12,  Deu.  xxix.  24/25;  on  i 
Kgs.  ii.  3,  Deu.  x.  12  f.,  xi.  i,  and  xxix.  8/9;  and  on  2  Kgs.  xxi.  8, 
Deu.  xxviii,  i,  etc. 

X  The  book  is  also  called  "  the  book  of  the  covenant "  (2  Kgs. 
xxiii.  2,  21),  like  Deuteronomy  (xxviii.  69/xxix.  i).  The  account  of 
it  contains  various  other  Deuteronomic  expressions  :  c.  i:;.^  "  hearken 
...  to  do,"  xxii.  13  (Deu.  xv.  5;  xxviii.  i,  15);  "other  gods," 
xxii.  17  (Deu.  xiii.  3/2;  xxviii.  14,  etc.);  "commands,  testimonies, 
and  statutes,"  xxiii.  3  (Deu.  vi.  17);  ''with  all  the  heart,"  etc., 
xxiii.  3,  25  (Deu.  iv.  29;  vi.  5;  etc.).  Finally,  the  effects  produced 
by  the  book  were  such  as  Deuteronomy  would  naturally  produce. 
It  filled  Josiah  with  terror  and  anxiety  (2  Kgs.  xxii.  11),  as  one 
would  expect  Deuteronomy,  especially  chapter  xxviii.,  to  do  under 
the  circumstances.  It  furnished  the  program  for  a  reform  such  as 
would  be  required  by  Deuteronomy  :  the  destruction  of  idolatry 
(2  Kgs.  xxiii.  4  f.,  10-15,  19  f.:  see  Deu.  iv.  15  ff.,  23,  25  ff. ;  vii.  5, 


lo  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  evident  that  there  is  no 
support  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
the  historical  books  written  before  the  Exile. 

Moses  is  twice  (Jer.  xv.  i  ;  Mic.  vi.  4)  mentioned  by 
the  prophets  who  wrote  before  the  Exile ;  but  in  both 
cases,  as  in  Hos.  xii.  14/13,  where  he  is  not  named,  he 
appears  in  the  character  of  a  deliverer  only.  The  same 
is  the  case  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  11  and  12  ;  but  in  Mai.  iii.  22/iv. 
4  and  Dan.  ix.  11  and  13  he  figures  as  the  national 
lawgiver.  The  law  to  which  Malachi  refers,  however, 
as  the  use  of  the  name  Horeb  for  the  sacred  mountain 
would  indicate,  is  probably  Deuteronomy.*  The  extent 
of  the  one  referred  to  in  Daniel  is  uncertain.! 

The  name  of  Moses  occurs  nearly  twice  as  often  in 
the  later  as  it  does  in  the  earlier  histories,  exclusive  of 
Joshua.  J  In  the  first  place,  most  of  the  references  to  him 
in  the  books  of  Kings  are  repeated.  §  It  would  be  natural 
to  expect  their  significance  to  be  the  same  in  both  con- 
nections.    This,  however,  is  not  the  case.     It  is  clear, 

25  f. ;  xii.  2f.;  xvi.  21  f . ;  xxvii.  15);  the  suppression  of  soothsayers, 
etc.  (2  Kgs.  xxiii.  24;  see  Deu.  xviii.  10  f.);  the  abolition  of  high 
places  (2  Kgs.  xxiii.  8  ;  see  Deu.  xii.  4,  13 ;  xvi.  5)  ;  the  concentra- 
tion of  worship  at  Jerusalem  (2  Kgs.  xxiii.  8  f.,  23  ;  see  Deu.  xii.  5  ff., 

26  f. ;  xiv.  23  ff. ;  xv.  19  f , ;  xvi.  2,  6,  11,  15  f.  ;  xxvi,  2;  xxxi.  11). 

*  See  Deu.  i.  2,  6;  etc.  Wellhausen  {SV,  V.  202)  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  Malachi  (ii.  i  ff.),  as  in  Deuteronomy,  there  is 
no  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites. 

t  Bevan  connects  the  verses  cited  with  v.  2  of  the  same  chapter, 
and  all  with  Lev.  xxvi,  18  ff.     Comp.  Behrmann. 

X  He  is  mentioned  only  sixteen  times  in  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings;  but  thirty-one  times  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah. 

§  With  1  Kgs.  ii.  3  compare  i  Chr.  xxii.  13  ;  with  2  Kgs.  xiv.  6, 
2  Chr.  xxv.  4 ;  with  2  Kgs.  xxi.  8,  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  8;  with  2  Kgs.  xxii. 
8,  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  14;  and  with  2  Kgs.  xxiii.  21,  2  Chr.  xxxv.  6,  12. 
For  I  Kgs.  viii.  53  and  56,  and  2  Kgs.  xviii.  6  and  12  there  are  no 
parallels  in  the  books  of  Chronicles. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  1 1 

c.  g.,  as  has  already  been  noted,  that  in  i  Kgs.  ii.  3  the 
author  has  in  mind  Deuteronomy ;  but  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  matter  of  the  temple  into  the  jDarallcl  narra- 
tive makes  it  probable  that,  in  i  Chr.  xxii.  13,  what  is 
meant  by  "the  statutes  and  judgments  which  Yahweh 
commanded  Moses  "  is  a  more  extensive  collection.  But 
the  most  interesting  and  instructive  of  these  parallel  pas- 
sages is  the  Chronicler's  account  of  the  reformation 
under  Josiah  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  i  ff.)  The  author  of  the 
books  of  Kings  constantly  reminds  one  of  Deuteronomy  ; 
but  in  Chronicles  the  details  which  produce  this  impres- 
sion are  either  omitted  or  transposed,*  while  the  brief 
notice  of  Josiah's  passover  is  expanded  into  an  elaborate 
report  betraying  an  acquaintance  with  the  legislation  of 
the  middle  books  as  well  as  with  that  of  Deuteronomy. f 
This  means  that,  although,  according  to  the  earlier  writer, 
the  book  found  was  Deuteronomy,  according  to  the  later  it 
was  the  completed  Pentateuch.  It  is  this  larger  *'law" 
to  which  the  Chronicler  refers  in  the  additional  cases 
(except  Neh.  be.  14)  in  which  Moses  is  mentioned.  The 
most  important  are  three  in  which  the  book  made  the 
basis  of  the  covenant  of  444  b.  c.  is  attributed  to  Moses. 
The  first  (Neh.  viii.  i)  simply  describes  it  as  "the  book 
of  the  law  of  Moses  :  "  but,  of  the  other  two,  one  (Neh. 
viii.  14.),  expressly  cites  Lev.  xxiii.  42  and  the  other  (Neh. 
xiii.  I  f.),  Deu.  xxiii.  4/3  f.  See  also  Neh.  x.  30/29  f., 
and  Deu.  vii.  3  and  viii.  11.  Add  to  the  evidence  of 
these  passages  the  fact  that  the  first  half  of  the  prayer 

*  In  Chronicles  the  purgation  of  the  land  is  described  in  much 
briefer  terms  than  in  Kings,  and  represented  as  begun  in  Josiah's 
twelfth  year  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  3)  and  completed  before  the  discovery 
of  the  law  by  Hilkiah  {v.  8). 

t  Notice  especially  2  Chr.  xxxv.  13;  which  seems  to  have  been 
dictated  by  a  desire  to  harmonize  Ex.  xii.  8  f.  with  Deu.  xvi.  7. 


12  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

of  the  Lcvitcs  in  Nch.  ix.  is  a  r<^sum(f  of  the  contents  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  the  identity  of  the  two  books  seems 
estabUshed.* 

It  is  possible  that  the  authors  of  some  of  the  remaining 
books  of  the  Hebrew  canon  shared  the  opinion  of  that 
(or  those)  of  the  great  work  now  divided  into  the  books 
of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah ;  but,  since  none  of 
them  found  occasion  to  connect  the  name  of  Moses  with 
the  Pentateuch  or  anything  that  can  be  mistaken  for  it, 
their  attitude  on  the  subject  cannot  be  determined.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  is  no  doubt  what  the  later  Jews 
thought  about  it.  In  the  Talmud  the  only  question  is, 
whether  the  words  of  the  Mishna,  "Moses  wrote  his 
book,"  f  are  to  be  taken  absolutely,  or  with  such  latitude 
that  the  last  eight  verses  of  Deuteronomy,  describing  the 
death  and  burial  of  the  lawgiver,  may  be  regarded  as  an 
addition  made  by  his   successor.  J      The  extreme  view 

*  There  are  other  passages  which  it  may  be  worth  while  to  men- 
tion in  this  connection.  Some  of  them  refer  to  certain  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  Pentateuch  as  parts  of  the  law  of  Moses.  See  i  Chr. 
vi.  33/48  f.  (Num.  iii.  f . ;  Lev.  viii.  f.);  i  Chr.  xv.  15  (Num.  iv. 
15);  2  Chr.  viii.  13  (Num.  xxviii.  f.);  2  Chr.  xxiv.  6,  9  (Ex.  xxx.  11 
ff.) ;  2  Chr.  xxx.  16  (Num.  xviii.  i  ff.);  and  Neh.  i.  7  ff.  (Deu.  xxx.  i 
ff.).  The  rest  represent  this  law  as  in  the  form  of  a  book.  See 
2  Chr.  xxiii.  18;  Ezr.  iii.  2  (Num.  xxviii.  f.);  and  Ezr.  vi.  18  (Lev. 
viii.  f. ;  Num.  iii.  f.).     See  also  Ezr.  vii.  6. 

t  Baba  Bathra,  14b. 

X  The  discussion  of  the  question  is  an  excellent  example  of  rab- 
binical dialectics  and,  as  such,  well  worth  quoting.  It  runs  as 
follows : 

"It  is  said  that  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  eight  verses  in  the 
law.  On  what  authority  is  it  said,  Eight  verses  of  the  law  Joshua 
wrote?  On  the  authority  of.  And  Moses  the  servant  of  Yhwh  died 
there  [Deu.  xxxiv.  5].  Is  it  possible  that  Moses,  while  yet  alive, 
wrote,  And  he  died  there  ?  Nay  ;  but  thus  far  Moses  wrote,  and 
from  this  point  onward  Joshua  wrote.  —  Tiiesc  arc  the  words  of 


THE  PENTATEUCH  13 

seems  to  have  been  the  more  popular.  At  any  rate,  this 
is  the  one  adopted  by  both  Philo  and  Josephus.  The 
former  declares  that  "  while  still  alive  he  [Moses]  pro- 
phesied admirably  what  should  happen  to  himself  after 
his  death,"*  and  the  latter  uses  similar  language.!  The 
Jews  were  so  jealous  for  the  glory  of  Moses  that  they 
would  not  let  even  Ezra  share  with  him  the  authorship 
of  the  law.     The  latter,  therefore,  was  represented,  not 

R.  Judah,  or,  some  say,  R.  Nehemiah.  R.  Simeon  said  to  him,  Is 
it  possible  that  the  book  of  the  law  wanted  a  single  character, 
since  it  is  written  [Deu.  xxxi.  26],  Take  this  book  of  the  law? 
Nay ;  but  thus  far  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  he,  spoke  and  Moses 
wrote,  and  from  that  point  onward  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  he, 
spoke  and  Moses  wrote  with  tears ;  as  is  further  said  [Jer.  xxxvi. 
18],  And  Barukh  said  to  them,  With  his  mouth  he  pronounced,  etc." 

*  He  calls  attention  to  the  minuteness  with  which  Moses  writes, 
'*  relating  how  he  had  died,  when  he  was  not  yet  dead ;  and  how  he 
was  buried  without  any  one  present  to  know  of  his  tomb ;  —  be- 
cause, in  fact,  he  was  entombed,  not  by  mortal  hands,  but  by  im- 
mortal powers ;  so  that  he  was  not  placed  in  the  tomb  of  his 
forefathers,  having  met  with  particular  grace  which  no  man  ever 
saw;  —  and  mentioning,  further,  how  the  whole  nation  mourned 
for  him  with  tears  a  whole  month,  displaying  the  individual  and 
general  sorrow  on  account  of  his  unspeakable  benevolence  toward 
each  individual  and  toward  the  collective  host,  and  of  the  wisdom 
with  which  he  had  ruled  them."    Works,  iii.  135  ;  see  also  83  f.,  1 13  f. 

t  He  clearly  intends  to  attribute  all  the  legislation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch to  Moses  {AJy  iii.  12,  3  ;  iv.  8,  3 ;  44,  46).  He  also  regards 
Moses  as  the  author  of  the  books  in  which  this  legislation  is  pre- 
served {A J,  X.  4,  2).  He  calls  them  "  the  holy  books  of  Moses  laid 
up  in  the  temple."  Comp.  v.  i,  17.  In  his  work  Contra  Apion  he 
is  more  definite:  for  he  says  (i.  i,  S)  that,  of  the  twenty-two  books 
composing  the  Scriptures  of  his  people,  "  five  belong  to  Moses  ; 
which  contain  his  laws  and  the  traditions  of  the  origin  of  mankind 
until  his  death."  Finally,  he  asserts  {AJ^  iv.  8,  48)  that  Moses 
"  wrote  in  the  holy  books  that  he  died ;  which  was  done  out  of  fear 
lest  they  should  venture  to  say  that  because  of  his  extraordinary 
virtue  he  went  to  God." 


14  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

as  the  compiler,  but  as  the  inspired  restorer,  after  its 
destruction,  of  this  as  well  as  the  other  portions  of  their 
Scriptures.* 

Jesus  and  his  early  disciples  were  Jews,  and,  as  such, 
shared  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the  traditional  opinions 
of  their  countrymen.  They  would  naturally,  therefore, 
think  and  speak  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  work  of  Moses. 
That  they  actually  did  thus  think  and  speak,  it  is  very 
easy  to  show.  The  evangelists,  e.  g.,  themselves  use  the 
same  terms  in  referring  to  the  Pentateuch  as  other  Jews, 
and  they  represent  their  Master  also  as  employing  them.f 
He  uses  the  terms  "  law  of  Moses  "  (Lu.  xxiv.  44)  and 

*  The  legend  is  found  in  4  Esd.  xiv.  Ezra  says :  '*  Thy  law  is 
burnt ;  therefore  no  man  knoweth  the  things  that  are  done  of  thee, 
and  the  works  that  shall  begin.  But,  if  I  have  found  grace  before 
thee,  send  the  Holy  Spirit  unto  me,  and  I  will  write  all  that  hath 
been  done  in  the  world  since  the  beginning,  the  things  that  were 
written  in  thy  law,  that  men  may  find  thy  path,  and  that  they  which 
live  in  the  latter  days  may  live  "  {vv.  21  f.).  God  answers  :  "  Take 
with  thee  Sarea,  Dabria,  Selemia,  Ecanus,  and  Asiel,  these  five, 
which  are  ready  to  write  swiftly,  and  come  hither ;  and  I  will  light 
a  candle  of  understanding  in  thine  heart,  which  shall  not  be  put 
out  till  the  things  be  performed  which  thou  shalt  begin  to  write." 
{vv.  24  f.).  When,  after  forty  days,  the  work  has  been  completed, 
God  commands:  "The  first  twenty-four  that  thou  hast  written 
publish  openly,  that  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy  may  read  them ; 
but  keep  the  last  seventy,  that  thou  mayest  deliver  them  only  to 
such  as  be  wise  among  the  people  "  {v7k  45  f.). 

■f  The  evangelists  themselves  connect  the  name  of  Moses  with 
the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  Lu.  xxiv.  27;  Jno.  i.  17,  45  ;  with  a  par- 
ticular passage,  Lu.  ii.  23.  Other  Jews  are  represented  as  attribut- 
ing to  Moses  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  Jno.  ix.  28  f. ;  particular 
passages,  Mat.  xix.  7  (Mar.  x.  4);  xxii.  24  (Mar.  xii.  19;  Lu.  xx. 
28);  Jno.  viii.  5.  Jesus  is  represented  as  connecting  the  name  of 
Moses  with  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole.  Mat.  xxiii.  2;  Lu.  xvi.  29, 
31  ;  xxiv.  44  ;  Jno.  v.  45  f. ;  vii.  19;  with  particular  passages,  Mat. 
viii.  4  (Mar.  i.  44;  Lu.  v.  14);  xix.  8  (Mar.  x.  3);  Mar.  vii.  10; 
xii.  26  (Lu.  xx.  37);  Jno.  vii.  22  f. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  15 

"  book  of  Moses  "  (Mar.  xii.  26),  but  generally,  when  he 
refers  to  the  Pentateuch  he  employs  the  briefer  "  Moses," 
and  that  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  that  the  book  and 
the  man  are  associated  in  his  mind  in  the  relation  of  the 
work  to  its  author.*  When  the  gospel  spread  among 
the  gentiles,  they  received  with  it  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  traditions  then  current  respecting  its  origin. 
Thus  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  became  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
church,!  in  which,  for  fifteen  centuries,  it  was  trans- 
mitted almost  unquestioned.^ 

*  See  especially  the  expressions  "  Moses  showed  in  the  Bush  " 
(Lu.  XX.  37)  and  "  Moses  and  the  Prophets  "  (Lu.  xvi.  29).  These 
and  other  passages  of  the  same  sort  from  the  Old  or  the  New 
Testament  are  sometimes  given  a  different  interpretation,  certain 
who  feel  forced  to  admit  that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  written  by 
Moses  asserting  that  the  terms  found  in  them  may  have  been  sug- 
gested by  the  prominence  of  Moses  in  the  work:  and  the  use  of 
"Esther"  in  such  expressions  as  "Esther  teaches,"  etc.,  is  cited  in 
support  of  this  position  (Briggs,  HCH,  20  ff.).  The  answer  is,  that 
the  names  of  persons  when  connected  with  books  do  not  always 
have  the  same  significance  ;  that  the  significance  in  any  given  case 
must  be  determined  by  the  circumstances  under  which  the  name  is 
employed  ;  and  that,  in  the  case  of  Moses,  the  universal  prevalence, 
about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  of  the  belief  that  he  wrote 
the  Pentateuch,  is  good  ground  for  assuming  that,  when  his  name 
was  connected  with  the  book  by  the  writers  of  the  period,  espe- 
cially if  the  book  was  cited  as  an  authority,  the  terms  used  ex- 
pressed, and  were  intended  to  ejtpress,  the  current  doctrine. 

t  The  passages  from  the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Testament 
bearing  on  this  subject  are  the  following:  The  Pentateuch  as  a 
whole  is  attributed  to  Moses,  Acts  vi.  11,  14;  xiii.  39;  xxi.  21; 
xxvi.  22;  xxviii.  23;  i  Cor.  ix.  9;  Heb.  vii.  14;  x.  28;  particular 
passages.  Acts  iii,  22;  xv.  i  ;  Rom.  x.  5,  19. 

X  Origen  (C  Ccls.  ii.  54)  adopted  the  stricter  Jewish  doctrine. 


l6  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

III.  Structure  and  Composition 
The  discussion  just  concluded  has  shown  that,  although 
the  Pentateuch  itself  does  not  claim  to  have  been  written 
by  Moses,  and  earlier  authorities  persistently  ignore  its 
existence,  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  the  later  books 
of  the  Old,  attribute  it  to  him,  and  this  is  the  traditional 
doctrine  of  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  church. 
The  question  now  arises  whether  the  testimony  of  the 
last  two  authorities  is  to  be  accepted  as  decisive.  There 
are  those  who  reply  without  hesitation  in  the  affirmative  ; 
arguing  that  even  the  latest  of  the  sacred  writers  were  so 
much  nearer  the  Mosaic  age  than  modern  scholars  that  it 
is  impertinence  in  the  latter  to  question  the  statements 
or  implications  of  the  former,  that  this  impertinence 
becomes  presumption  in  view  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
writers  quoted,  and  that  the  offense  amounts  to  impiety 
when  Jesus'  relation  to  the  subject  is  considered.* 
These  arguments  are  as  weak  as  they  are  unfair.  In 
reply  to  the  first  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that,  if,  as  is 
generally  admitted,  the  value  of  testimony  depends  upon 
the  distance  of  the  witness  from  the  event  to  which  he 
testifies,  it  certainly  is  not  favorable  to  the  traditional 
doctrine  that  the  support  for  it  comes  from  witnesses 
none  of  whom  lived  within  a  thousand  years  of  the  time 
of  Moses.  The  second  argument  takes  for  granted  that 
inspiration  insures  infallibility  ;  a  doctrine  for  which  there 
is  no  ground  in  reason  or  experience,  and  of  which  there 
is  no  example  in  the  history  of  revelation.  The  third  is 
as  good  an  example  of  the  argiivicnUim  ad  vcreanidiam 
as  could  be  cited.  It  should  neither  deceive  nor  terrify 
anybody.     The  truth  is,  that  Jesus  never  claimed  to  be 

*  (irecn,  HC1\  33;    Ilarinan,   ///^',   258  f.  ;  Lex   Mosaka  (Ci. 
Kawliuson),  44  ff. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  17 

omniscient,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  on  at  least  one  occa- 
sion (Mar.  xiii.  32),  confessed  that  his  knowledge  was 
limited.*  There  is,  therefore,  no  impiety  in  facing  the 
possibility  of  discovering  another  example  of  such  limita- 
tion, and  asking  in  all  humility  and  reverence,  whether 
the  Pentateuch  caji  have  been  written  by  Moses  ;  a  ques- 
tion the  answer  to  which  involves  a  careful  study  of  the 
structure  and  composition  of  the  work. 

One  cannot  proceed  far  with  the  examination  proposed 
without  suspecting  that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  the  pro- 
duct of  a  single  pen.  In  fact  this  idea  suggests  itself  to 
the  unprejudiced  mind  at  the  outset  ;  for  there  is  nothing 
clearer  than  that  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis  con- 
tain two  accounts  of  creation,  i.  i-ii.  4a  and  ii.  4b-2  5,  dif- 
fering from  each  other  in  almost  every  respect  in  which 
they  may  be  compared.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  de- 
cided difference  in  their  vocabularies.  The  most  striking 
example  under  this  head  is  found  in  the  names  given  to 
the  Creator,  God  being  the  one  used  in  the  first,  and 
Yahwch  {God)  that  employed  in  the  second  account  ;  f 
but  there  are  several  others  of  almost  equal  importance.  J 

*  See  also  Lu.  ii.  52.  Some  prefer  to  meet  this  point  by  appeal- 
ing to  Jno.  xvi.  12,  where  Jesus  is  reported  to  have  told  his  disci- 
ples that  there  were  many  things  which  he  wished  to  tell  his  disci- 
ples but  could  not,  because  they  were  not  prepared  to  understand 
or  appreciate  them  ;  and  explaining  that  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  may  well  have  been  one  of  the  things  reserved  for 
future  revelation,  the  discussion  of  which  he  avoided  by  adopting 
the  language,  but  not  the  opinion,  of  the  day  (Briggs,  HCH,  29). 

t  This  difference  was  noticed  by  some  of  the  Christian  fathers, 
'  €.  g.^  TcrtulUzn  (Adv.  //en/iogeuem,  c.  3)  and  Augustine  {De  Ge7icsi 
ad  litteram,  iii.  2);  but  its  significance  was  misunderstood. 

X  Thus,  e.  g.^  in  the  first  account  the  word  that  describes  God's 
creative  activity  is  either  the  generic  term  nii?^,  make  (i.  7,  16,  25, 
26,31  ;  ii.  2,  3),  or  the  more  specific  S~I3,  create  (i.  i,  21,  27  ;  ii.  3, 
4);  while  in  the  second,  although  rm737  is  found  (ii.  4,    iS),  the 


i8  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

Secondly,  not  only  are  the  words  used  in  the  two  ac- 
counts largely  different,  but  those  of  the  first  are  differ- 
ent in  kind  from  those  of  the  second.  Indeed,  the  style 
of  the  one  varies  throughout  from  that  of  the  other ;  the 
first  being  literal  and  prosaic,  while  the  second  is  as  no- 
ticeably picturesque  and  poetical.*  Thirdly,  while  these 
narratives  agree  in  certain  fundamental  matters,  e.  g.y  in 
tracing  the  origin  of  the  world  to  an  intelligent  God,  and 
placing  man  first  among  his  creatures,  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that,  in  the  details  of  creation,  they  are  clearly 
and  irreconcilably  divergent.!     Finally,  these  narratives 

more  characteristic  term  is  ")!5%  form  (ii.  7,  8,  19),  or  n33,  build 
(ii.  22).  In  the  former  S2%  go  forth,  is  used  of  both  plants  and 
animals  (i.  12,  24),  in  the  latter  the  corresponding  words  are  TTCi2, 
sprout  (ii.  5,  9),  and  '1!^'^  (ii.  19).  Finally,  the  first  account  generally 
has  yns,  earth  (i.  11,  12,  24,  26,  28,  30),  and  ynSH  H^U,  beast  of 
the  earth  (i.  25,  30),  where  the  second  has  TTCT^^, ground  (\\.  5,  6,  7, 
9,  19),  and  nTtZ7n  VK^T^,  beast  of  the  f  eld  (n.  19,  20). 

*  The  peculiarities  of  the  style  of  the  first  account  are  seen  in 
the  logical  character  of  the  narrative,  the  uniform  structure  of  the 
sections  of  which  it  is  composed,  and  the  recurrence  of  cognates 
in  such  expressions  as  StJ?"!  S"^^7"Tn,  lit.  green  greenness  (i.  11), 
r"lT  r^'HTn,  lit.  seed  seed  (i.  12),  ynt£>  \^-:tt7,  lit.  swarm  a  swarm 
(i.  20),  etc.  There  is  none  of  this  formality  in  the  second  account. 
It  produces  the  impression  of  a  series  of  dissolving  views.  One  of 
the  most  vivid  and  delightful  of  these  pictures  is  that  in  which 
Yahweh  is  described  as  first  moulding  man  into  shape,  as  a  potter 
would  fashion  a  dish,  and  then  breathing  into  his  ?iostrils,  thus 
transforming  the  hitherto  lifeless  clay  into  a  living  creature.  The 
description  of  the  creation  of  the  animals  is  equally  vivid,  while 
the  last  words,  "  but  for  man  there  was  not  found  a  help  meet  for 
him,"  gives  it  an  element  of  pathos. 

t  The  second  is  not  so  comj^lete  an  account  of  God's  work  as 
the  first;  but  this  is  not  so  remarkable  as  the  fact  that  they  do  not 
agree  in  the  details  common  to  them.  In  the  first  God  is  repre- 
sented as  creating  vegetation  (i.  11  If.),  animals  (i.  20  ff.),  man  (i. 
26  ff.),  one  after  another.     The  second  begins  where  the  first  ends 


THE   PENTATEUCH  19 

give  evidence  that  they  were  written  from  different  stand- 
points and  with  different  objects  in  view  ;  the  first  being 
the  work  of  some  one,  doubtless  a  priest,  devoted  to  the 
study  of  Hebrew  institutions,  the  second,  that  of  a  pro- 
phet, or  some  one  else  whose  interests  were  predomi- 
nantly ethical  and  religious.* 

The  example  cited  is  not  a  solitary  instance.  One 
after  another  the  reader  discovers  a  succession  of  dupli- 
cates, whose  existence  cannot  be  explained  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  Moses  or  any 
other  single  author,  f  If  he  is  at  all  critical  he  also  dis- 
covers places  in  which  parallel  passages  have  been  inter- 

(ii.  7),  but  postpones  the  creation  of  woman  (ii.  21  ff.)  until  after 
that  of  vegetation  (ii.  8  ff.)  and  animals  (ii.  19  ff.) ;  and  this  order  is 
intentional,  for  the  author  evidently  thought  that  vegetation  was 
originally  dependent  on  the  care  of  man  and  that  woman  was,  in  a 
sense,  an  afterthought. 

*  Note  that  the  interest  of  the  first  account  culminates  in  the 
sanctification  of  the  sabbath,  while  the  most  significant  thing  about 
the  second  is  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil. 

t  The  following  are  among  the  most  noticeable  :  The  story  of 
the  covenant  of  God  with  Noah  has  two  forms,  Gen.  viii.  20-22 
and  ix.  8-17;  so,  also,  that  with  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.  and  xvii. 
Gen.  XX.  and  xxvi.  i-ii  are  clearly  but  two  versions  of  one  tradi- 
tion. The  same  is  just  as  evidently  the  case  with  xxi.  22-32,  and 
xxvi.  12-31.  The  origin  of  the  name  "  Bethel  "  is  described  in  two 
different  passages,  xxviii.  10-22  and  xxxv.  9-15;  Jacob  twice  re- 
ceives the  name  '*  Israel,"  Gen.  xxxii.  22-32  and  xxxv.  9-13  ;  and 
there  are  two  lists  of  the  dukes  of  Edom,  Gen.  xxxvi.  15-19  and 
40-43.  Nor  are  these  repetitions  confined  to  Genesis.  In  Exodus 
the  revelation  of  the  name  Yaliweh  is  narrated  in  iii.  13-15,  and 
again  in  vi.  2-7.  In  chapters  xii.  f.  there  are  duplicate  directions 
concerning  the  passover,  xii.  1-13  and  21-27;  the  feast  of  unleav- 
ened bread,  xii.  14-20  and  xiii.  3-10;  and  the  first-born,  xiii.  i  f. 
and  11-16.  Inxxxiii.  7-1 1  there  is  a  fragment  of  a  second  account 
of  the  tabernacle.  Finally,  Deuteronomy  is  largely  a  repetition  of 
the  history  and  legislation  of  the  three  preceding  books. 


20  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

woven  into  more  or  less  consistent  composite  narratives. 
A  good  example  is  the  story  of  the  Flood,  Gen.  vi.  5- 
viii.  14.  The  substance  of  it  is,  that,  the  earth  having 
become  corrupt,  God  determined  to  destroy  it,  and  actu- 
ally caused  a  deluge,  in  which  every  living  thing,  except- 
ing Noah  and  his  family  and  a  few  animals,  perished  ;  and 
so  long  as  one  reads  it  in  outline  only,  it  seems  perfectly 
clear  and  coherent.  Not  so  when  one  asks  how  many 
animals  were  preserved,  or  how  long  the  deluge  lasted  ; 
for  on  these  points  its  statements  are  so  divergent  that 
one  is  forced  to  attribute  them  to  different  authors.* 

The  incongruity  of  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  appears 
most  clearly  when  one  undertakes  to  trace  its  chronology. 
The  story  that  Abimelech,  attracted  by  the  beauty  of 
Sarah,  took  her  from  her  supposed  brother  (Gen.  xx.),  is 
not  in  itself  improbable.  The  difficulty  in  believing  it 
arises  from  the  fact  that  it  is  so  placed  as  to  make  the 
woman  ninety  years  of  age  when  she  was  kidnapped. 
See  xvii.  17.  But  the  most  convincing  illustration  of  this 
sort  is  found  in  a  series  of  references  to  Judah,  the  son 
of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxviii.)  He  is  said  to  have  married  a 
daughter  of  the  Canaanite  Shua,  by  whom  he  had  three 
sons  {vv.  2  ff.).  After  the  youngest  of  these  was  grown 
{v.  14.),  Tamar  bore  him  two  sons  {vv.  29  f.) ;  one  of 
whom,  Perez,  had  two  sons  when  the  Hebrews  migrated 
to  Egypt  (xlvi.  12).  Yet,  according  to  xxxvii.  2,  xxxviii. 
I,  xli.  46,  53,  and  xlv.  6,  the  time  within  which  all  this 
occurred  was  only  twejity-two  years.^     These  facts  can 

*  There  are  many  other  examples  of  this  sort.  The  most  in- 
structive are  the  story  of  the  banishment  of  Jacob,  Gen.  xxvi.  34- 
xxviii.  9  ;  of  the  sale  of  Joseph,  Gen.  xxxvii. ;  of  the  mission  of  the 
spies,  Num.  xiii.  f. ;  and  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah  and  others. 
Num.  xvi.  1-35. 

f  An  attempt  to  fix  the  ages  of  Dinah  and  her  brothers  when  the 


THE  PENTATEUCH  21 

only  be  explained  on  the  theory  of  diversity  of  author- 
ship. It  must  therefore  be  admitted  that  the  Pentateuch 
is  a  compilation.  The  only  question  concerns  the  num- 
ber of  writers  represented  and  the  process  by  which  their 
contributions  were  united  into  a  single  work. 

The  first  effect  of  the  discoveries  described  is  to  con- 
fuse the  student,  and  incline  him  to  conclude  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  a  mass  of  fragments,  whose  authorship  it 
is  useless  to  discuss,  thrown  into  its  present  form  at  a 
comparatively  late  date  by  a  careless  or  incompetent  com- 
piler. This  is  the  conclusion  actually  reached  by  Spinoza 
(1670),  the  father  of  the  so-called  Fragmentary  Hypothe- 
sis,* first  proposed,  as  such,  by  Geddes  (1800), t  and  fully 

incident  narrated  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  occurred  will  disclose  other  similar 
difficulties. 

*  Spinoza  {TTP,  ix.)  thus  expresses  himself:  "Any  one  who 
but  observes  that  in  these  five  books  precept  and  narrative  are 
jumbled  together  without  order,  that  there  is  no  regard  to  time, 
and  that  one  and  the  same  story  is  often  met  with  again  and  again, 
and  occasionally  with  very  important  differences  in  the  incidents, 
—  whoever  observes  these  things,  I  say,  will  certainly  come  to  the 
conclusion,  that  in  the  Pentateuch  we  have  merely  notes  and  col- 
lections to  be  examined  at  leisure,  materials  for  history  rather  than 
digested  history  itself." 

t  Geddes'  statement,  found  in  the  preface  to  his  (unfinished) 
translation  of  the  Bible  (xix.),  runs  as  follows:  "  Moses,  who  had 
been  taught  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians^  most  probably  was 
the  first  Hebrew  writer,  or  the  first  who  applied  writing  to  historical 
composition.  From  his  journals  a  great  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
seems  to  have  been  compiled.  Whether  he  were  also  the  original 
author  of  the  Hebrew  cosmogony  and  of  the  history  prior  to  his 
own  days,  I  would  neither  confidently  affirm  nor  positively  deny. 
He  certainly  may  have  been  the  original  author  or  compiler;  and 
may  have  drawn  the  whole  or  a  part  of  his  cosmogony  and  general 
history,  both  before  and  after  the  Deluge,  from  the  archives  of 
Egypt  ;  and  these  original  materials,  collected  first  by  Moses,  may 
have  been  worked  up  into  their  present  form  by  the  compiler  of 


22  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

developed  by  Vater  (1805),  who  states  it  as  follows  :  "  The 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  consist  of  a  multitude  of  sepa- 
rate pieces,  large  and  small,  some  very  small,  concerning 
v^hich  it  is  clear,  not  that  they  were  composed  with 
reference  to  one  another,  and  for  the  purpose  of  being 
attached  to  one  another,  but  the  contrary.  Further,  among 
these  separate  pieces  many  are  evidently,  and  most  at 
least  probably,  by  different  authors.  .  .  .  The  more  prob- 
able opinion  ...  is,  that  a  considerable  part  of  Deuter- 
onomy existed  from,  at  the  latest,  the  age  of  Solomon  or 
David,  that  separate  pieces  which  we  now  find  in  the 
Pentateuch  were  gradually  composed,  and  that  the  col- 
lection had  a  later  origin,  perhaps  toward  the  time  of  the 
Exile."* 

These  supposed  fragments,  however,  when  examined, 
are  found  to  have  affinities  in  accordance  with  which 
they  arrange  themselves  in  series  with  well  defined  char- 
acteristics. Thus,  e.  g.y  one  version  of  the  covenant  with 
Noah  (Gen.  ix.  8  ff.)  calls  the  Deity  God,  and  otherwise 
reminds  one  of  the  first  account  of  creation ;  while  the 
other  (viii.  20  ff.)  uses  the  name  Yahweh,  and,  in  general, 
follows  the  style  of  thought  as  well  as  language  of  the 
second  account.  Indeed,  almost  the  entire  contents  of 
the  first  nineteen  chapters  of  Genesis  can  be  classed  as 
either  Elohistic  or  Yahwistic.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
remainder  of  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch ;  but 
from  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Genesis  onward  there  are 
two  kinds  of  Elohistic  materials,  only  one  of  which  can 
have  been  supplied  by  the  source  of  Gen.  i.  and  Ex.  vi.  3, 

the  Pentateuch  in  the  reign  of  Solomon.     But  it  is  also  possible, 
and,  I  think,  more  probable,  that  the  latter  was  the  first  collector, 
and  collected  from  such  documents  as  he  could  find  either  among 
his  own  people  or  among  the  neighboring  nations." 
*  Ci",  iii.  504,  680.     See  also  Hartmann,  IIKF,  584. 


THE   PENTATEUCH  23 

the  Other  being  furnished  by  the  writer  (or  writers)  whose 
preference  for  the  name  "  God  "  is  explained  in  Ex.  iii. 
14.  On  the  other  hand,  nearly  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy 
is  written  in  a  style,  and  characterized  by  a  tone,  of  which 
there  is  hardly  a  trace  in  any  of  the  preceding  books.* 

There  are  two  ways  of  explaining  these  facts  :  In  the 
first  place,  one  might  suppose  that  the  original  work  was 
a  homogeneous  document  in  the  style  of  the  Elohist  or 
the  Yahwist,  and  that  the  remaining  contents  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  added  by  successive  revisers.  This 
was,  in  fact,  at  one  time  the  prevalent  theory.  It  is  the 
Supplementary  Hypothesis,  broached  by  Kellef  (18 12),  of 
which  Bleek  is  perhaps  the  best  representative.  His  state- 
ment of  it  (abridged)  is  as  follows  :  %  "  The  first  contin- 
uous historical  work,  distinct  traces  of  which  appear  in 
the  works  remaining  to  us,  dealt  connectedly  with  the  his- 
tory from  the  creation  up  to  the  death  of  Joshua,  or  up 
to  the  occupation  and  partition  of  the  land  of  Canaan ; 
and  its  composition  took  place,  in  all  probability,  in  the 
time  of  Saul.  .  .  .  This  work  is  that  of  the  so-called 
Elohist.  ...  It  contained  the  bulk  of  the  contents  of 
the  first  four  books  of  our  Pentateuch,  also  the  account 
of  the  death  of  Moses  (substantially  Deu.  xxxiv.  1-8), 
and  the  greater  part  of  the  book  of  Joshua.  .  .  .  This 
work  was  enlarged  and  revised  by  a  somewhat  later 
author,  probably  in  the  time  of  David,  and  in  not  quite 

*  There  is  difference  of  opinion  with  reference  to  the  amount  of 
Deuteronomic  material  in  the  first  four  books,  but  Gen.  xxvi.  5, 
Ex.  X.  2,  XV.  26,  xix.  4-6,  XX.  3b-6,  xxiii.  24  and  32  f.,  and  xxxiv. 
12  f.  and  15  f.,  at  least,  seem  to  be  of  this  character. 

t  VWMS,  iii.  He  asked,  *'  Could  not  Genesis  be  represented 
as  a  book,  originally  well  arranged,  whose  plan  has  been  disturbed 
by  a  large  number  of  interpolations  due  to  the  successive  crystal- 
lization of  oral  traditions  current  among  the  people  ?  " 

X  EAT,  141  ff.  (Eng.  i.  362  £f.). 


24  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

the  last  of  his  reign.  The  older  document  remained  the 
basis ;  but  it  was  enlarged  by  many  new  sections,  a  part 
of  which  the  author  found  already  written,  a  part  also 
being  oral  traditions  which  he  himself  put  into  writing. 
The  narratives  of  the  earlier  document  were  also,  to 
some  extent,  revised,  additions  and  alterations,  or  abridg- 
ments and  omissions,  being  made  where  thQjchovist  used 
further  sources  respecting  the  same  circumstances  and 
events.  .  .  .  Next  came  the  last  revision  of  the  work 
by  the  autJior  of  Dctiteroiioiny,*  from  whom  it  received 
the  form  and  extent  which  it  now  presents  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  the  book  of  Joshua.  .  .  .  The  composition  of 
Deuteronomy  and  the  last  revision  of  the  Pentateuch,  in 
all  probability,  are  to  be  referred  to  the  reign  of  King 
Manasseh,  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century  b.  c." 
Colenso,  the  former  bishop  of  Natal,  also,  was  an  advocate 
of  this  hypothesis.! 

*  De  Wette  (1805)  was  the  first  to  recognize  in  Deuteronomy  an 
independent  document  of  the  seventh  century  B.  c. 

f  This  is  his  form  of  it :  "  The  Elohistic  story  in  Gen.  i.-Ex.  vi. 
5  was  written  in  the  latter  part  of  Samuel's  time,  perhaps  by  Sam- 
uel himself  after  the  rupture  with  Saul.  .  .  .  The  writer  .  .  .  left 
it  now  to  be  filled  up  and  continued  by  younger  hands.  Accord- 
ingly, this  was  done  by  the  Jehovistic  writer  or  writers  of  the  fol- 
lowing age,  trained,  no  doubt,  in  the  same  school  and  under  the  very 
eye  of  Samuel.  .  .  .  From  the  time  when  the  O.  S.  was  completed, 
...  in  the  early  years  of  Solomon,  with  the  addition  of  the  older 
portions  of  Judges  and  Ruth,  .  .  .  i  and  2  Samuel,  and  i  Kings, 
the  work  .  .  .  remained  untouched  .  .  .  till  the  days  of  Jeremiah 
(the  Deuteronomist),  who  .  .  .  retouched  and  enlarged  it  in  his 
own  prophetical  style,  and  ultimately  inserted  the  law  in  Deu.  v.  ff., 
...  the  discovery  of  which  gave  rise  to  Josiah's  reformation 
(2  Kgs.  xxiii.).  To  this  he  added,  some  time  afterwards,  the  intro- 
duction, Deu.  i.-iv.,  and  the  later  chapters  xxix.  f.,  as  well  as  the 
history  of  the  kings  from  Solomon  downwards,  contained  in  the  two 
books  of  Kings.  .  .  .  Finally,  during  the  first  years  of  Jehoachin's 


THE   PENTATEUCH  25 

The  Supplementary  Hypothesis  was  widely  accepted ; 
but  it  finally  had  to  be  abandoned  because  it  did  not 
take  into  account  that  the  so-called  supplemental  portions 
of  the  Pentateuch  are  more  closely  connected  with  one 
another  than  with  the  context  in  which  they  are  found,  and 
that,  when  taken  by  themselves,  they  form  as  complete 
a  narrative  as  one  could  hope  to  recover  from  a  composite 
production.  These,  however,  are  the  facts.  Thus,  the 
second  account  of  creation,  as  is  shown  by  its  form  and 
content,  is  not  a  supplement  to  the  first,  but  an  introduc- 
tion to  the  story  of  the  Fall  (iii.),  the  first  genealogy 
(iv.  I,  i6b-24),  a  notice  of  Noah  (v.  29;  ix.  20-27),  etc. 
But  these  facts  require  one  to  suppose  that  the  Jehovis- 
tic  as  well  as  the  Elohistic  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
originally  constituted  an  independent  document.  When, 
therefore,  in  the  progress  of  research  and  discussion 
they  had  been  established,  the  Supplementary  gave  place 
to  the  Documentary  Hypothesis. 

The  Documentary  Hypothesis  logically  comes  last  in 
the  list  of  theories  passed  in  review ;  nor  did  it  obtain 
the  favor  that  it  now  enjoys  until  the  other  two  had  been 
tried  and  found  wanting  ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
the  oldest  of  the  three,  for  it  was  proposed  by  Astruc, 
its  inventor,  in  1753.  This  is  its  original  form  :  "Moses 
had,  I  believe,  collected  twelve  different  memoirs,  or 
fragments  of  memoirs,  which  concerned  the  creation  of 
the  world,  the  universal  deluge,  the  history  of  the  patri- 

captivity,  Ezekiel  followed  the  example  of  Jeremiah  by  writing  Lev. 
xviii.,  XX.,  and  xxvi.  .  .  .  His  work  was  taken  up,  during  the  Cap- 
tivity and  after  it,  by  a  series  of  priestly  writers.  .  .  .  Very  prob- 
ably Ezra,  and  the  priests  his  companions,  had  a  lar^e  share  in 
this  work,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  brought  very  nearly  to  a  close 
in  his  days,  so  far  as  the  Hebrew  text  is  concerned  ;  though  it  may 
have  received  some  touches  even  after  that  time  "  {PBJ^  Part  VI. 
616  ff.).     See  also  Tuch,  Genesis. 


26  THE    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

archs,  and  especially  that  of  Abraham  and  his  posterity. 
For  his  purpose  he  arranged  these,  either  entire  or  in 
extracts,  in  twelve  different  columns,  and  placed  each 
part  of  a  memoir  or  fragment  in  the  place  appropriate  for 
it  over  against  other  corresponding  parts  or  fragments, 
thus  compiling  a  work  in  twelve  columns.  Perhaps, 
however,  to  avoid  the  confusion  of  so  many  columns,  he 
arranged  all  his  memoirs  in  only  four  columns.  .  .  .  We 
should  be  happy,  and  much  pains  would  be  spared,  if 
Genesis  had  come  down  to  us  in  this  form.  But  the 
copyists  long  ago  disarranged  it  in  transcribing  it."* 
These  suggestions  were  at  first  received  with  ridicule,  and 
an  attempt  by  Ilgen  (1798)  to  improve  upon  them  f  was 

*  CG,  432  ff.  This  hypothesis,  be  it  observed,  was  originally 
intended  to  serve  as  a  defence  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

t  Ilgen's  work  is  entitled  Die  Urkunde  dcs  jericsalemischen 
Te?npelarchivs  in  ihrer  Urgestalt,  I.  In  it  (425)  he  states  his 
theory  as  follows :  "  After  a  careful  examination  of  the  text  of 
Genesis,  in  which  T  have  faithfully  followed  the  clues  furnished  by 
the  headings,  the  frequent  repetitions,  the  divergence  in  language 
and  tone,  and  the  varying  and  entirely  contradictory  contents,  I 
have  found  that  the  documents  which  the  collector  had  before  him 
and  combined  belong  to  three  different  authors,  of  whom  two  use 
the  name  EloJmn^  and  the  \\i\xdi  Jahveh.  I  call  those  who  use  the 
name  Elohiin,  or  the  Elohists,  Sopher  Eliel  {God  is  7ny  God),  to 
indicate  that  they  are  characterized  by  the  use  of  the  name  Elohimj 
but  the  one  who  uses  the  name  Jahveh  I  call  Sopher  Elijah  {My 
God  is  Jah\  because  the  portions  that  belong  to  him  are  distin- 
guished hy  Jahveh.  To  distinguish  them  from  each  other,  I  give  to 
one  Eliel  the  epithet  Harishon  {the  first),  and  to  the  other  the  epithet 
Hashsheni  {the  second);  Elijali,  also,  has  the  epithet  Harishon.  In 
the  latter  case  it  may  seem  superfluous,  since  he  stands  alone,  and 
therefore  does  not  need  to  be  distinguished  from  any  other  ;  but  it  is 
possible  that,  in  the  future,  he  may  not  remain  the  only  one,  that 
another  may  make  his  appearance,  when  the  distinction  will  be 
necessary." 


THE  PENTATEUCH  27 

ignored ;  but  a  form  of  Astruc's  theory  championed  by 
Eichhorn  (1780),  who  extended  his  researches  through 
the  Pentateuch,  for  a  time  enjoyed  considerable  favor.* 
This,  however,  was  finally  superseded  by  the  Supple- 
mentary Hypothesis,  whose  prevalence  even  Kwald,  with 
his  elaborate  and  ingenious  modifications  (1843),  was  not 
able  to  prevent.! 

It  was  Hupfeld  (1853)  who,  having  independently,  as 
he  claims,  reached  the  result  published  fifty  years  before 
by  Ilgen,f  gave  the   deathblow  to  the    Supplementary 

*  The  following  is  the  form  in  which  he  put  it  in  the  fourth  (1823) 
edition  of  his  Einleitujig :  "The  first  book  of  Moses  was  compiled 
of  fragments  from  two  works  by  different  authors.  ...  It  seems 
to  me  probable  that  the  two  documents  were  brought  into  the  form 
in  which  we  now  have  them  at  the  end,  or  soon  after  the  end,  of  the 
Mosaic  period.  .  .  .  The  contents  of  the  last  four  books  of  Moses 
prove  that,  with  the  exception  of  late  additions,  they  are  derived 
entirely  from  documents  contemporaneous  with  the  Mosaic  legis- 
lation. Not  that  all  these  documents  were  written  by  Moses  him- 
self, but  a  great  part  of  them  by  some  of  his  contemporaries.  .  .  . 
The  Mosaic  books  seem  to  have  received  their  present  division 
and  form  between  Joshua  and  Samuel."      (iii.  64,  93,  334,  350.) 

t  The  following  is  Ewald's  view  in  its  final  (1864)  form:  He 
finds  in  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  the  work  of  seven  hands  :  (i) 
the  Book  of  Covenants,  by  a  Judaite  who  wrote  about  the  beginning 
of  Samson's  judgeship  ;  (2)  the  Book  of  Origins,  by  a  Levite  who 
wrote  soon  after  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple ;  (3)  a  third 
version  of  the  primitive  history,  by  an  Israelite  of  the  tenth  or  the 
ninth  century  b.  c;  (4)  a  fourth  element,  by  a  Jew  of  the  ninth  or 
the  eighth  century  ;  (5)  a  fifth,  by  the  compiler  of  the  preceding 
sources,  a  Jew  of  the  second  half  of  the  eighth  century ;  (6)  Deu- 
teronomy, by  an  Egyptian  Jew  of  the  latter  half  of  the  reign  of 
Manasseh  ;  (7)  the  editorial  additions  of  the  final  compiler,  who 
completed  the  work  about  700  B.  c.  (///,  i.  64  ff.) 

X  He  says  in  the  preface  (viii.  ff.)  to  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis 
that,  although  he  had  read  Ilgen's  book,  he  had  entirely  forgotten 
it  until  his  own  was  nearly  finished  ;  then  he  came  upon  it  and 
found  in  it  much  of  which  he  had  supposed  himself  the  discoverer. 


28  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

Hypothesis  and  revived  its  neglected  rival.  He  epito- 
mizes the  contents  of  his  book  as  follows  :  "  There  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  Genesis  (and  of  the  Pentateuch  in  gen- 
eral) two  distinct  cycles  of  legends  or  forms  of  national 
tradition  :  ...  an  older,  simpler,  .  .  .  and  a  younger,  en- 
riched and  adorned.  .  .  .  The  former  we  have  in  the  so- 
called  Elohim  document,  the  latter  chiefly  in  the  Jahwistic 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch ;  along  with  which,  however, 
a  younger  Elohist  appears  in  connection  with  the  princi- 
pal characters  in  the  theocratic  history.  .  .  .  Both  [of 
these  last]  forms  of  legend  must  have  been  independent 
of  each  other,  and  independently  recorded.  .  .  .  The 
combination  of  the  three  documents  in  the  present  whole 
must  be  simply  the  work  of  a  later  editor."  *  The  pub- 
lication of  these  results  marked  the  beginning  of  a  new 
period  in  the  history  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  ;  for,  from 
that  date,  the  Documentary  Hypothesis  has  grown  in 
favor,  and  it  is  now,  in  some  form,  accepted  by  nearly  all 
recognized  authorities  in  biblical  criticism.! 

The  prevalent  hypothesis  makes  the  Pentateuch  a 
compilation  from  at  least  four  documents.  These  docu- 
ments, being  the  work  of  as  many  different  authors,  when 
intact  presented  linguistic  and  other  peculiarities  by 
which  they  were  readily  distinguishable.  The  excerpts 
from  them  have,  in  some  cases,  been  handled  so  freely  in 
the  process  of  compilation  that  it  is  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  separate  them  ;  but  as  a  rule  they  have  been 
preserved  in  so  nearly  their  original  form  that  there  is 
little  room  for  doubt  with  reference  to  their  authorship. 
In  fact,  the  Pentateuch  has  been  analyzed,  and  the  greater 

*  QG.  98  f.,  193,  195. 

t  Klostermann  {Der  Pentateuch,  1893),  who  still  prefers  a  form 
of  the  Supplementary  Hypothesis,  is  one  of  the  few  exceptions. 


THE   PENTATEUCH  29 

part  of  its  contents  more  or  less  satisfactorily  referred  to 
one  or  another  of  the  documents  in  question.* 

The  work  from  which  the  first  account  of  creation  is 
an  extract,  whose  author  (or  authors)  was  formerly  known 
as  the  Elohist  because  at  first  he  calls  the  Deity  God 
(ciohiin)y  and  the  first  Elohist,  to  distinguish  him  from 
the  one  discovered  by  Ilgen,  is  now  generally  called  the 
Priests'  Code,  or  the  Priestly  document,  and  more  briefly 
designated  as  PC  or  simply  P,  f  because  it  was  evidently 
written  from  the  sacerdotal  standpoint.  In  one  view  it 
is  the  most  important  of  the  sources  of  the  Pentateuch  ; 
for  it  furnished,  not  only  the  framework  of  the  whole,  but 
the  largest  share  of  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed, 
including,  according  to  the  best  authorities,  about  a  fifth 
of  Genesis,  nearly  a  half  of  Exodus,  the  whole  of  Leviti- 
cus, nearly  three-fourths  of  Numbers,  and  a  few  verses 
in  Deuteronomy.  It  began  with  an  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  race,  and  traced  the  history  of  the  Hebrews  and 
their  institutions  as  far  as  the  occupation  of  Palestine. 
The  style  of  the  extracts  from  it,  even  after  Ex.  vi.  2, 
where  the  name  Yahwch  is  introduced,  \  is  unmistakable. 
It  is  logical  and  orderly  beyond  that  of  either  of  the  other 
documents. §     It  is  also  very  precise,  abounding  in  literal 

*  For  a  complete  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch,  see  Driver,  /LOT; 
for  a  comparative  view  of  the  results  reached  by  the  leading;  critics, 
Holzinger,  EH.  The  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  is  indicated 
by  Bacon  (GG ;  TTE)  by  various  sorts  of  type  ;  by  W2M^\.{SB0T^ 
by  different  colors.     See  also  Oxford  Hex. 

f  Dillmann,  who  has  a  system  of  his  own,  designates  it  as  A. 

X  On  the  significance  of  this  passage,  compare  Green,  HCP, 
100  f. 

§  The  form  of  the  first  account  of  creation  has  already  been 
noticed.  The  same  peculiarity  is  illustrated  by  the  division  of  the 
Priestly  portions  of  Genesis  into  books  of  "generations."  See  ii. 
4  (displaced);  v.  i  ;  vi.  9;  etc. 


30  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

and  technical  terms/  and  in  circumstantial  definitions.f 
The  contents  of  the  document  were  largely  legal,  chrono- 
logical, and  genealogical ;  at  any  rate,  this  is  the  character 
of  most  of  the  portions  of  it  that  have  been  preserved.^ 
They  are  also  characterized  by  comparatively  devel- 
oped theological  ideas,  with  an  evident  avoidance  of  the 
marvellous  features  of  Hebrew  tradition,  as  well  as  the 
anthropomorphic  and  anthropopathic  language  found  in 
other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.§  One  does  not  look  for 
literary  effect  in  a  work  of  this  sort ;  yet  there  are  pas- 

*  There  are  no  better  illustrations  of  the  literal  tendency  of  P 
than  those  found  in  the  vocabulary  of  the  first  extract  from  it,  Gen. 
i.  I  ff. ;  c.  g.,  God,  create,  i.  i  ;  <^t'=become,  i.  2;  appear,  \.  9;  bring, 
cause  to  go,  forth,  i.  12  ;  etc. ;  the  word  brood  {A  V,  move)  being  a 
noticeable  exception.  Compare  also  the  word  for  beget  in  Gen.  v. 
3,  for  destroy  in  vi.  13,  for  make,  of  a  covenant,  in  xvii.  7,  for  offer- 
ing in  Lev.  i.  2,  etc.,  with  those  used  in  Gen.  iv.  18,  vi.  7,  xv.  17, 
iv.  4,  etc.  For  a  list  of  the  Unguistic  peculiarities  of  this  document 
see  Driver,  I  LOT,  131  ff.  :  Holzinger,  EH,  338  ff. ;  Oxford  Hex.  i. 
208  ff. 

t  See  the  phrases,  "and  it  was  so,"  Gen.  i.  7;  "after  its  kind," 
i.  1 1 ;  "  and  he  died,"  v.  5  ;  "  on  the  same  day,"  vii.  11;"  after  their 
families,"  x.  20,  etc.  Note  also  the  fulness  of  mere  detail  in  such 
passages  as  Gen.  vi.  14-22,  ix.  8-17,  and  xvii.  10-14. 

X  It  is  this  document  which  explains  the  origin  of  the  sabbath 
and  circumcision  in  Genesis  (ii.  i  ff . ;  xvii.),  and  records  the  com- 
plete development  of  the  Hebrew  religion  in  the  legislation  of  Ex. 
xxxv.-Num.  X.  It  is  also  the  document  to  which  we  are  indebted 
for  the  genealogies  of  Gen.  v.  and  xi.,  containing  the  only  biblical 
data  for  a  chronology  of  the  early  history  of  the  race. 

§  The  point  here  made  may  be  illustrated  by  citing  at  random 
almost  any  passage  from  this  document  for  which  there  is  a  parallel 
in  the  first  four  lx)oks  of  the  Pentateuch.  Compare,  with  especial 
reference  to  the  use  of  anthropomorphisms,  the  first  and  second 
accounts  of  creation  ;  and  with  reference  to  the  introduction  of  the 
marvellous.  Gen.  xvii.  with  xv.  (the  covenant  with  Abraham),  xxxv. 
9  ff.  with  xxviii.  10  IT.  (the  name  Bethel),  and  Ex.  vi.  2  ff.  with  iii.  i  ff. 
(Moses'  commission). 


THE   PENTATEUCH  31 

sages  taken  from  it  in  which  certain  subjects  are 'treated 
with  a  dignity  that  makes  them  deeply  impressive.* 

The  second  account  of  creation  is  from  J,  /.  c,  the 
Jahvistic  (more  exactly  Yahwistic)  document,  so  named 
because  it  generally  calls  God  Ja/iveh,  or,  better,  YaJiwcli. 
To  this  document  is  referred  about  a  half  of  Genesis,  a 
sixth  of  Exodus,  a  fifteenth  of  Numbers,  and  a  few  verses 
in  Deuteronomy.  The  Yahwistic  portions  of  Genesis 
are  recognizable  by  the  divine  name  employed.!  In  the 
other  books  this  criterion  is  of  less  service.  There  are, 
however,  other  marks  by  which  they  can  generally  be 
distinguished,  especially  from  extracts  from  the  Priestly 
document.  The  remains  of  the  Yahwistic  work  show 
that  the  interests  of  its  author  (or  authors)  were  predom- 
inantly religious,  and  that  he  wrote  the  history  of  his 
people  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  instruction  in  the 
truths  that  bear  upon  national  and  individual  life  and 
character.  The  materials,  gleaned  from  the  records  and 
traditions  of  the  Hebrews,  therefore,  are  not  regarded  as 
a  body  of  statements  whose  authenticity  is  to  be  guaran- 
teed, but  as  a  collection  of  illustrations,  which  may  be 
expanded  and  embellished,  and  thus  made  to  teach  more 
clearly  and  eloquently  than  they  otherwise  would  the 
lessons  to  be  learned  from  them.     The  style  is  free  and 

*  The  first  account  of  creation  is  generally  considered  a  fine 
example  of  the  sublime,  and  Gen.  xxiii,  an  almost  equally  good  one 
of  the  pathetic,  in  literature.  It  should,  however,  be  observed  that 
the  impression  made  was  evidently  not  intended  on  the  part  of  the 
author;  that,  in  fact,  it  is  produced  in  spite  of  peculiarities  that 
would  spoil  the  effect  of  less  impressive  subjects. 

t  The  name  "  God  "  occurs,  also,  without  doubt  as  the  original 
reading;  e. g.^  Gen.  iii.  i  ;  xxxii.  28;  xliii.  29.  In  other  cases  it 
has  been  inserted,  either  with  Yahweh,  as  in  Gen.  ii.  f.,  or  instead 
of  it,  as  in  Gen.  vii.  9.     See  the  Vulgate. 


32  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

flowing,  picturesque  and  poetical ;  *  therefore  always  in- 
teresting, and  sometimes  highly  dramatic. f  The  theo- 
logy is  naive  and  primitive,  God,  e.  g.,  being  sometimes 
represented,  not  only  as  possessing  tangible  parts  and 
displaying  human  passions,  but  as  associating  familiarly 
with  men.  J 

The  third  source  used  in  the  compilation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  E,  the  Elohistic  document,  so  named  because  its 
author  (or  authors),  like  that  of  P,  at  first  calls  God 
Elohini.  It  has  certain  points  of  contact  with  J,  —  a  fact 
which,  with  the  added  circumstance  that  the  extracts 
from  these  two  are  more  closely  interwoven  with  one 
another  than  with  those  from  other  sources,  sometimes 
makes  it  difficult  to  decide  to  which  of  them  a  given  pas- 
sage of  the  Pentateuch  originally  belonged.  There  are, 
however,  criteria  —  as  far  as  Ex.  iii.  14,  the  divine  name 
—  by  which  some,  at  least,  of  the  critics  claim  in  most 

*  The  picturesqueness  of  the  second  account  of  creation  has 
already  been  noticed  (p.  18  f.).  For  a  list  of  the  linguistic  peculiari- 
ties of  this  document,  see  Holzinger,  EH,  93  ff.  or  Oxford  Hex,  i. 
185  ff. ;  for  additional  illustrations  of  vivid  description,  Gen.  ix. 
20  ff. ;  xi.  I  ff. ;  XV.  10  f.,  17  f.;  etc.  Note  also  that  the  strictly 
poetical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  are  largely  from  J ;  e.  g..  Gen. 
iv.  23  f.  ;  ix.  25  ff. ;  xxv.  23 ;  xlix.  2  £f. 

t  The  majority  of  the  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  most  inter- 
esting from  the  literary  standpoint  are  from  the  Yahwistic  docu- 
ment. See  the  story  of  the  Fall  (Gen.  iii.),  of  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Gen.  xix.),  of  the  mission  of  Eliezer  (Gen. 
xxiv.),  etc.  Perhaps  the  prettiest  picture  from  this  source  is  that 
of  the  meeting  betvireen  Jacob  and  Rachel  (Gen.  xxix.  2  ff.);  the 
most  dramatic,  and  one  of  the  most  effective  in  any  language,  is 
Judah's  plea  for  Benjamin  (Gen.  xliv.  18  ff.). 

X  He  makes  a  sound  as  he  walks  in  the  garden  in  Eden  (Gen. 
iii.  8  £.);  repents  of  having  made  man  (Gen.  vi.  6) ;  comes  down  to 
see  the  city  and  tower  of  Babel  (Gen.  xi.  5);  visits  Abraham  and 
accepts  his  hospitality  (Gen.  xviii.  i  ff.);  etc. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  33 

cases  to  have  settled  the  question.  The  result  of  the 
analysis  is,  that  the  THohist  is  credited  with  having  fur- 
nished more  than  a  fourth  of  Genesis  and  l^lxodus,  about 
a  ninth  of  Numbers,  and,  like  the  rest,  a  few  verses  of 
Deuteronomy.*  These  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  betray 
the  prophet's  zeal  for  religion  and  morality,  but  it  is  min- 
gled with  an  interest  in  theology  and  archaeology.  In 
other  words,  they  abound,  on  the  one  hand,  in  traces  of 
reflection  on  the  things  of  God,  and  on  the  other,  in 
details  that  no  one  but  an  antiquary  would  have  inserted 
into  his  narrative.f  It  is  probably  an  interest  in  antiqui- 
ties, rather  than  a  taste  for  poetry,  that  accounts  for  the 
fragments  of  ancient  songs  preserved  in  this  document.  :|: 
At  any  rate,  although  there  are  fine  passages,  the  style 
of  the  work  is  less  picturesque,  and  in  general  less  attrac- 
tive, than  that  of  J.§ 

*  For  a  complete  analysis,  which  Driver  does  not  attempt,  see 
Bacon  {GG ;  TTE)  or  Oxford  Hex.;  for  a  comparison  of  the 
views  of  the  various  critics,  Holzing^r  {EH,  ii.).  The  latter  gives 
a  list  of  the  linguistic  characteristics  of  E  (181  ff.) ;  so  also  Ox- 
ford Hex.  i.  190  ff. 

t  The  theological  bent  manifests  itself  in  the  use  of  the  name 
Elohim,  in  the  character  of  the  theophanies  described  (Gen.  xv.  i  ; 
XX.  3  ;  etc.),  in  the  instances  of  providential  interference  narrated 
(Gen.  xxii.  13  ;  xxxi.  9;  xlv.  7  ;  etc.),  etc.;  the  architological,  in  the 
preservation  of  the  names  of  Eliez.er  (Gen.  xv.  2),  Deborah  (Gen. 
XXXV.  S),  Potiphar  (Gen.  xxxvii.  36),  etc.;  also  of  Mahanaim  (Gen. 
xxxii.  21  f.),  Dothan  (Gen.  xxxvii.  17),  Pithom(Kx.  i.  11),  etc.  No- 
tice, finally,  in  this  connection  the  allusions  to  idolatry  among  the 
early  Hebrews  (Gen.  xxxi.  19  ff.;  xxxv.  2  ff.). 

X  It  is  E  in  which  is  found  the  quotation  from  the  "  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Yahweh"  (Num.  xxi.  14  f.).  See  also  Ex.  xv.  21  ;  xvii. 
16;  etc. 

§  The  best  Elohistic  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  are  Abraham's 
sacrifice  (Gen.  xxii.  r  ff.),  Joseph's  first  inter\-icw  with  his  brethren 
(Gen.  xlii.  8  ff.),  and  the  finding  of  Moses  (Ex.  ii.  i  ff.). 


34  THE    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

The  fourth  element  in  the  composition  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  D,  the  Deuteronomic.  The  document  so  desig- 
nated is  found  incorporated  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy. 
Its  individuality  is  even  more  marked  than  that  of  either 
of  the  others.  It  is  distinctly  a  prophetic  production, 
aiming  directly  at  the  accomplishment  of  certain  results, 
chief  among  which  are  the  suppression  of  idolatry,  the 
centralization  of  the  worship  of  Yahweh,  and  the  devel- 
opment of  the  moral  and  religious  life.  The  ideas  that 
underlie  these  aims,  the  unity  and  spirituality  of  God 
and  the  supreme  duty  of  loving  him  (iv.  15  ff.  ;  vi.  4  f.), 
are  an  advance  upon  the  teachings  of  either  J  or  E,  but 
the  style  of  this  document,  though  fervid  and  lucid,  is 
often  diffuse,  discursive,  and  repetitious.* 

The  decomposition  of  the  Pentateuch  on  the  lines  in- 
dicated explains  many  of  the  peculiar  phenomena  ob- 
served, and  removes  many  of  the  immemorial  difficulties 
encountered,  in  it ;  but  there  are  other  phenomena  that 
are  not  explained,  and  other  difficulties  that  are  not  re- 
moved by  so  simple  an  analysis.  Thus,  e.  g.y  Gen.  iii.  and 
iv.  are  assigned  to  J,  and  they  certainly  display  through- 

*  The  tendency  to  diffuseness  shows  itself  especially  in  the 
enumeration  of  particulars.  See  iv.  6,  9 ;  vi.  7,  10  f . ;  vii.  13  f. ; 
viii.  7  ff.  ;  xii.  6,  18;  etc.  The  second  fault  is  well  illustrated  by 
the  way  in  which  the  statutes  and  judgments,  which  first  iv.  i,  and 
then  vi.  i,  leads  the  reader  to  expect  without  further  preparation, 
are  postponed  until  the  twelfth  and  the  succeeding  chapters.  In- 
stances of  repetition  are  numerous.  Thus  the  promise  of  restora- 
tion from  captivity  in  iv.  29  ff.  recurs  in  xxx.  I  ff. ;  the  injunction 
concerning  the  remembrance  of  the  law,  found  in  vi.  6  ff.,  appears 
aji;ain  in  xi.  18  ff.;  etc.  Certain  phrases  peculiar  to  the  document, 
such  as  "  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,"  etc. ;  "  that  thy  days  may 
be  long,"  etc. ;  "the  place  which  Yahweh  shall  choose,"  etc.; 
"  with  all  thy  heart,"  etc.,  arc  many  times  repeated.  On  the  fur- 
ther j)eculiarities,  see  Holzini^^er,  EH,  282  ff. ;  Driver,  I  LOT,  98  ff. ; 
Kuenen,  OCH,  no  ff. ;  Oxford  Hex.  i.  200  ff. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  35 

out  some  of  the  leading  characteristics  of  that  document ; 
but  the  tree  of  life  in  iii.  is  a  disturbing  as  well  as  an  un- 
necessary feature  in  the  story  of  the  Fall,  and  in  iv.  the 
representation  of  Cain,  or  his  son,  as  the  founder  of  the 
first  city,  is  hardly  in  harmony  with  the  curse  pronounced 
upon  the  murderer.  These  and  other  more  or  less  appar- 
ent discrepancies  indicate  that  the  work  in  question,  when 
it  was  incorporated  with  one  or  more  of  the  others  com- 
posing the  Pentateuch,  was  not  in  its  original  form,  but 
had  been  enriched  with  materials  some  of  which  may 
have  been  derived  from  other  writings  ;  *  and  similar 
indications  in  the  other  documents  justify  the  conclusion 
that  they,  too,  were  the  products  of  a  process  of  develop- 
ment. The  original  work  may  be  designated  as  J\  etc., 
and  later  forms  or  additions  as  J^,  J*^,  etc. 

There  are  two  distinct  processes  by  which  one  can  im- 
agine the  Pentateuch  as  having  been  compiled  from  the 
documents  that  compose  it.  In  the  first  place,  they 
might  all  have  circulated  as  separate  works  until  the  last 
had  reached  its  final  form,  and  then  have  been  put  to- 
gether by  a  single  editor.  The  other  process  would  be 
the  gradual  one,  by  which  two  of  the  documents  would 
first  be  united,  and  this  compilation  aftenvard  enlarged 
by  the  addition,  one  after  the  other,  by  the  same  or  dif- 
ferent editors,  of  the  remaining  two.  Now  it  is  agreed 
that  the  editorial  additions  discoverable  in  the  Pentateuch 
are  not  all  by  one  hand,  and  that,  therefore,  the  former 
of  these  processes  is  not  the  one  by  which  the  compila- 
tion was  actually  produced.  There  remains,  however,  the 
question,  whether  this  editorial  work  may  not  have  been 
done  by  two  compilers.      Dillmann  and  others  claim  that 

*  Vox  details  concerninii;  the  composition  of  this  document,  see 
Budde,  DU;  liruston,  DJ :  Holzin.crer,  EH,  142  ff. ;  Kucnen,  OCH, 
250  ff. ;  Oxford  Hex.  i.  108  ff.,  117  ff.,  141  ff. 


36  THE   WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

it  was,  three  of  the  documents  being  put  together  by  the 
first,  and  the  one  remaining  united  with  the  work  thus 
produced  by  the  second  ;  *  but  the  majority  of  critics  in- 
sist that  the  phenomena  presented  can  only  be  explained 
on  the  supposition  of  a  threefold  redaction.  The  order 
of  compilation,  and  the  reasons  for  the  theory  adopted 
with  reference  to  it,  will  be  discussed  in  the  next  chapter. 


IV.     Age  of  Documents  and  Order  of  Compilation 

The  Documentary  Hypothesis  seems  established.  At 
any  rate,  it  has  been  adopted  by  the  leading  Old  Testa- 
ment scholars  of  the  day  as  the  most  satisfactory  solution 
of  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  yet  sug- 
gested.! There  is  some  divergence  of  opinion  with  re- 
ference to  the  analysis  of  its  contents ;  but  it  mostly 
touches  minor  matters  concerning  which  perfect  harmony 
is  not  important.  J  It  is  the  final  question  respecting  the 
dates  of  the  several  documents  and  of  the  stages  in  the 
process  of  compilation  to  which  the  most  divergent  an- 
swers have  been  given.     On  this  critics  divide  themselves 

*  See  Dillmann,  NDJ,  671  ff. ;  Kittel,  HH,  i.  132.  Note,  how- 
ever, that  they  do  not  agree  in  their  answers  to  the  question,  which 
three  entered  into  the  original  compilation  ;  Dillmann's  formula  for 
the  Pentateuch  being  PEJ  -f  D,  and  Kittel's  EJD  -{-  P. 

t  Its  sturdiest  American  opponent  was  the  late  Professor  Green 
of  Princeton,  whose  The  Hii^her  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  has 
already  been  cited.  See  also  his  Moses  and  the  Prophets^  The 
Hebrew  Feasts^  The  Unity  of  Genesis^  and  a  discussion  with 
President  Harper  in  Hebraica  for  1888-91.  The  leading  English 
conservatives  have  presented  their  case  in  a  joint  production  under 
the  title  Lex  Afosaica,  edited  by  R.  V.  French. 

X  The  following  table,  based  on  Holzinger's  comparative  anal- 
ysis, exhibits  both  the  degree  and  the  character  of  the  divergence 
among   live   acknowledged    authorities  concerning  the   Yahwistic 


THE  PENTATEUCH 


yj 


into  two  schools,  one  of  which  places  J  before  E  and  P 
after  the  Exile,  while  the  other  insists  that  E  is  older 
than  J  and  that  P  originated  before  the  overthrow  of 
Judah.*  Of  course,  it  is  impossible,  in  this  connection, 
to  present  all  the  evidence  on  which  the  adherents  of 

element  in  Gen.  xxi.-xxx.,  the  first  ten  chapters  following  the  first 
extended  extract  from  the  Elohistic  document : 


Dillmann. 

Wellhauseii. 

Kuenen. 

Cornill. 

Bacon. 

xxi 

la,  2a,  7,  32b*, 
33,  34*- 

la,   2a,   6b,   7, 
33(?)-      ^ 

la,  2a,  6b,  7, 
31-33- 

•! 

20-24  (JE).... 

i4-.8*(J^),2<>- 
24. 

20-24  (J') 

2oa/3-24. 

xxiii 

XXIV 

XXV 

1-67 

1-67 

1-67. 

1-5,     'lb,     18, 

5,  6*  (?),    lib, 

i^(JE?),  lib, 

i-^,     lib,     18, 

1-6,     lib,    18, 

i8a,      2i-26a, 

18,  21-23,  24- 

21-263,27-34. 

2i-26a, 27-34. 

2i-26a,  27-34. 

.7-34. 

26a    (JE),27- 
29   (JE),    30- 

xxvi 

lb,  2aa,  3a,  7- 
14,    16  f.,   19- 

1-5*.       6-14, 
16  f.,  19-33. 

1-5*,  6-14,16  f., 
19-33- 

I  xx* 

I,  2aa,  3a,  6- 
14,   16  r,    19- 

33- 

32. 

XXVll 

15,  24-27,  30a, 
35-38- 

1-45  (JE) 

I-4S  (mostly).. 

1-45  (mostly).. 

I  a,  3*,  4ba,  5b, 
6,  7  (partly), 
15,  .8b)3-2o, 
24-27,  2gaa, 
29b, 3oaa, 30b, 
3ib-33.  36a, 
41a,  4Saa- 

xxvin 

10,  13-16, 19a*, 

13-16,  19a 

13-16  (J'),  17- 

10,  i3-i6»,  19a. 

10,     13  f.,     16, 

2.b(?). 

22  (J2,  partly). 

19a. 

XXIX 

2-14,      15a      (?), 

26*,  31-35 

1-30     (partly), 

2-14, 19-23,25- 

2- 14a,   26,    31- 

26.  31-35- 

31-35- 

28a,  30-35- 

35;- 

XXX 

3b-5,    7,    q-i6. 

3b/3,    7*,   9-16, 

14-16,   24,   28- 

laa,  3b^-5,    7, 

3b/3,  4,    7*.    9- 

20b,  21*,  22b/3, 

20b,  24  f.,  27, 

43- 

9-i6,  20b,  21, 

16  ,      20a^-2I, 

24  f.,  27,    29- 

29-3 «,  3 5-43- 

22b/3,      23a, 

22*,     24b,     25, 

43- 

24    f.,   27    (?), 
29-43- 

27.  29-31,  34- 
3Sa,  39,  4oaa, 
4ob-43- 

*  The  former  of  these  schools  is  often  called  by  the  name  of 
Graf,  because  he  was  the  first  {GBAT^  1866)  to  secure  a  hearing 
for  the  idea  that  P,  or  a  part  of  it,  was  later  than  the  other  docu- 
ments; but  Reuss.  his  teacher,  was  the  first  (1S34)  to  suggest  this 
hypothesis,  and  Wellhausen  has  become  its  most  prominent  repre- 
sentative. The  view  of  the  last  mentioned  (CH)  is  substantially 
as  follows  :  J  belongs  mostly  to  the  golden  period  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture, the  period  preceding  the  destructive  invasions  of  Palestine  by 
the  Assyrians ;  E  is  somewhat  later.     They  both  passed  through 


3^  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

these  schools  base  their  conclusions ;  it  would  only  con- 
fuse any  one  but  an  expert ;  but  perhaps  enough  can  be 

two  revisions  before  they  were  united.  D  appeared  just  before 
Josiah's  reforms,  and,  after  circulating  for  some  time  in  two  editions, 
produced  after  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  monarchy,  and  finally  taking 
a  form  combining  the  peculiarities  of  both,  was  combined  with  JE 
into  a  single  work.  The  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  is  later  than 
Ezekiel.  The  nucleus  of  it  is  Q  (the  four,  quatuor^  covenants), 
about  which  was  formed  a  conglomerate,  the  product  of  a  school 
of  writers,  during  and  after  the  Exile.  In  444  b.  c.  this  Priests' 
code  had  been  completed  by  the  addition  of  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.,  wrought 
into  JED,  and  divided  into  six  books,  the  first  five  of  which  were 
the  law  promulgated  by  Ezra. 

Kuenen's  statement  of  Graf's  theory  {OCH)  is  more  elaborate, 
varying,  also,  in  some  respects  from  that  of  Wellhausen.  J,  he 
thinks,  was  composed  in  the  northern  kingdom  before,  or  about, 
800  B.  c. ;  E  in  the  same  country  about  750.  In  the  second  half 
of  the  seventh  century  there  had  appeared  Judean  editions  of  both 
of  them,  which  were  united  into  a  single  work  about  600.  D, 
v^rhich  was  written  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  after  various  additions, 
was  combined  with  JE  during  the  Captivity.  Finally,  P,  itself  a 
compilation  made  during,  or  after,  the  Exile,  was  brought  to  Judea 
by  Ezra  in  458  B.  c,  promulgated  in  444,  and,  before  400,  wrought 
into  the  preceding  work  to  form  the  Hexateuch  in  substantially  its 
present  dimensions. 

The  most  prominent  representative  of  the  second  of  the  two 
schools  above  described  is  Dillmann,  who  states  his  view  (NDJ, 
593  ff.)  about  as  follows :  P  (his  A),  though  not  the  oldest  of  the 
sources  of  the  Hexateuch,  is  only  less  ancient  than  E  (his  B),  which 
is  to  be  assigned  to  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century  b.  c,  while 
J  (his  C)  dates  from  the  middle  of  the  eighth.  About  600  these 
three  were  wrought  into  a  continuous  whole,  to  which  D,  written 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  was  added  during  the  Exile.  Finally,  by 
the  insertion  of  parts  of  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  and  other  related  legisla- 
tion (his  S),  also  various  legal  fragments,  and  the  separation  of 
Joshua  from  the  rest  of  the  compilation,  the  law  of  Ezra,  and  the 
Pentateuch  in  substantially  its  present  form,  was  completed. 

Kittel,  who  is  also  a  conservative,  but  differs  on  some  points  from 
Dillmann,  thus  states  his  conclusions :  E  was  written  near  the  be- 
ginning, J  toward  the  end,  of  the  ninth  century  b.  c.     The  original 


THE  PENTATEUCIT  39 

adduced  to  indicate  what  is  likely  to  be  the  outcome  of 
the  discussion  in  progress. 

The  inquiry  into  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch  may  best 
begin  with  D  ;  since  it  has  been  preserved  more  nearly 
complete  than  any  of  the  other  documents,  and  has  cer- 
tainly left  more  distinct  traces  of  its  influence  than  they 
in  the  history  and  the  literature  of  the  Hebrews.  This 
document,  as  has  already  been  shown,  is  the  book  on 
which  were  based  the  reforms  of  the  eighteenth  year  of 
King  Josiah.  There  is  no  doubt  of  its  subsequent  exist- 
ence. From  that  time  it  was  known  and  recognized  as 
the  law  of  Yahweh.  The  later  prophets,  especially  Jere- 
miah,* repeatedly  betray  their  acquaintance  with,  and 
their  indebtedness  to  it,  while  the  author  (or  authors) 
who  put  into  their  present  form  the  books  of  Kings  con- 
stantly gives  evidence  that  it  was  not  only  his  literary 
model,  but  the  standard  by  which   he  decided  how  he 

of  Deuteronomy  was  a  product  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  This 
last,  after  various  additions,  was  united  with  the  two  preceding, 
hitherto  distinct,  documents  during,  or  just  before,  the  Captivity. 
Meanwhile  P,  the  oldest  parts  of  which,  perhaps,  date  from  the 
time  of  Solomon,  had  grown  to  its  final  proportions.  It  was  car- 
ried by  the  Jews  to  Babylon,  where  it  was  worked  into  the  previous 
compilation.  The  whole  thus  produced,  minus  the  book  of  Joshua, 
was  the  law  promulgated  by  Ezra. 

*  Vox  a  list  of  passages  (86)  from  his  prophecies,  in  which  the 
influence  of  Deuteronomy  is  most  apparent,  see  Zunz,  ZDATG, 
1873,671  ff. ;  for  a  less  complete  one,  Driver,  Deu.  xciii.  or  Oxford 
Hex.  i.  87  ff.  Jeremiah  not  only  uses  a  large  part  of  the  vocabu- 
lary of  the  earlier  book  ;  he  appropriates  whole  phrases  and  sen- 
tences. The  following  are  good  examples  :  vii.  23  (Deu.  v.  30/33); 
xi.  4  (Deu.  iv.  20);  xvi.  13  (Deu.xxviii.  36);  xxii.  8  (Deu.  xxix.  23/ 
24).  The  instances  of  this  sort  are  so  frequent  and  noticeable  that 
several  distinguished  scholars,  Gesenius  (G//S,  32)  and  Colenso 
(PB/,  Part  VII.  225  ff.)  among  their  number,  formerly  held  that  the 
prophet  was  the  author  of  both  books. 


40  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

should  regard  the  men  and  the  events  of  Hebrew  history.* 
It  is  therefore  impossible  to  deny  that  D,  in  some  form, 
is  as  early,  at  the  latest,  as  the  date  of  Josiah's  reforms. 

In  2  Kgs.  xxii.  8,  Hilkiah  is  represented  as  saying  that 
he  had  found  the  book  sent  to  the  king.  The  natural 
implication  is,  that  it  had  previously  been  known  and 
lost,  and  that,  therefore,  the  author  of  this  passage  be- 
lieved that  it  was  not  a  recent  production.  That  this 
really  was  his  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  the  school  to 
which  he  belonged,  is  clear  from  xxiii.  25,  where  he  calls 
the  book  discovered  "the  law  of  Moses,"  and  a  series  of 
related  passages,  cited  in  another  connection,  which  teach 
that  it  existed  at  various  dates  subsequent  to  that  of  the 
Exodus,  and  that  it  was  always  recognized  as  the  work  of 
the  law-giver,  f 

The  evidence  thus  far  adduced  is  explicit  and  seem- 
ingly conclusive ;  but,  before  the  case  is  closed,  it  should 
be  subjected  to  a  closer  examination.  If  D  really  was 
written  by  Moses,  and  was  known  as  his  work  at  certain 
dates,  it  ought  to  bear  marks  of  its  Mosaic  origin,  and 
the  other  works  written  before  it  was  lost,  if  it  was  lost, 
ought  to  bear  traces  of  its  influence.     If  the  authors 

*  The  Deuteronomic  character  of  2  Kgs.  xxii.  f.  has  already  been 
discussed.  For  an  earlier  example  in  the  same  style,  see  i  Kgs. 
ix.  1-9.  The  influence  of  the  Deuteronomic  idea  of  the  centraliza- 
tion of  worship  at  Jerusalem  appears  in  the  latter;  but  it  is  more 
apparent  in  i  Kgs.  xiv.  21,  and  the  passages  in  which  the  commen- 
dation bestowed  upon  the  good  kings  before  Josiah  is  modified  by 
the  significant  statement,  "but  the  high  places  were  not  taken 
away,"  i  Kgs.  xv.  14;  xxii.  43;  etc. 

t  The  passages  in  question  are  those  cited  (pp.  8  ff.)  in  proof  of 
the  claim  that  "  the  law  of  Moses "  in  the  P^ormer  Prophets  is 
Deuteronomy.  They  are  Jos.  i.  7  f. ;  viii.  31  f.,  34;  xxii.  5;  xxiii. 
6;  Jud.  iii.  4;  i  Kgs.  ii.  3;  viii.  53,  56;  2  Kgs.  xiv.  6;  xviii.  6,  12; 
xxi.  8. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  41 

who  arc  known  to  have  written  before,  according;  to  the 
Dcuteronomic  historian,  it  caii  have  been  lost  betray  no 
knowledge  of  it,  the  testimony  of  the  same  historian  to 
its  Mosaic  origin  will  justly  be  questioned  ;  and  if  the 
internal  "evidence  clearly  contradicts  him,  while  he  is  not 
to  be  rashly  condemned  as  a  falsifier,  his  statements  on 
the  point  under  discussion  must  be  ignored.  The  first 
question  is  easily  disposed  of.  Scholars  are  generally 
agreed  that,  while  Jeremiah  constantly  reminds  one  of 
Deuteronomy,  and  most  of  the  later  writers  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree  betray  its  influence,*  the  genuine  prophe- 
cies of 'Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah  leave  no  such 
impression.!  Hence,  2  Kgs.  xviii.  6  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, it  is  not  probable  that  it  was  in  existence 
when  these  prophets  flourished. 

The  second  question  requires  more  extended  treatment. 
The  evidence  derivable  from  Deuteronomy  itself  is  of 
various  kinds.  In  the  first  place,  the  book  may  be  ex- 
amined from  the  linguistic  standpoint.  The  result  of 
such  an  examination  is  unfavorable  to  the  opinion  that 
it  belongs  to  the  earliest  period  of  Hebrew  literature. 
The  use  of  the  word  prophet  is  significant  in  this  connec- 
tion. It  occurs  nine  times  ;  yet  i  Sam.  ix.  9  says  that 
it  is  a  comparatively  late  term,  that  the  man  of  God  was 
called  a  seer  until  after  the  establishment  of  the  mon- 
archy. The  general  style  of  the  book  should  also  be 
considered.  It  has  not  the  freshness  and  picturesqueness 
of  early  Hebrew,  but  an  oratorical  breadth  and  diffuse- 

*  See  Eze.  xx.;  Mai.  iv.  4/iii.  22;  Neh.  i.  5  ff. ;  Dan.  ix.  4  ff. ; 
etc. 

t  On  the  passages  by  these  prophets  usually  cited  as  evidence 
of  their  acquaintance  with  Deuteronomy,  sec  Driver,  Deu.  Ixii.  f.  ; 
Riehm,  EA  T,  i.  332  ff.  ;  comp.  Keil,  EAT,  i.  171  ff.;  Green,  HCP, 
54  f. 


42  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

ness,  already  noticed,  which  belongs  to  an  advanced 
stage  of  literary  development.*  The  local  and  historical 
indications  agree  with  the  linguistic.  The  phrase  "  be- 
yond Jordan,"  in  the  use  made  of  it,  implies  that  the 
book,  or  the  part  of  it  in  which  this  phrase  occurs,  was 
written,  not  in  Moab,  but  in  Canaan, f  and  the  comparison 
"as  Israel  did  to  the  land  of  his  possession  "  (ii.  12),  that 
it  was  penned  after  the  Conquest. f  If  it  be  objected 
that  ii.  10-12  and  20-22,  and  iii.  11  and  14-17,  the  last 
of  which  is  later  than  the  period  of  the  Judges,  §  are 
glosses,  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  xvii.  14  ff.     This  law 

*  See  Dillmann,  NDJ,  611;  Kittel,  HH,  i.  61  f. 

t  The  expression  beyond  (Heb.  123?^),  where  it  is  supplemented 
by  an  explanatory  clause  denoting  direction,  may  mean  either  side 
with  reference  to  the  speaker  or  writer.  Thus  supplemented,  it  is 
used  of  the  same  side,  Jos.  i.  15  ;  v.  i  ;  xii.  7;  of  the  opposite,  Deu. 
xi.  30  ;  Jos.  xii.  i  ;  xiii.  8.  When  not  modified  by  such  a  clause,  in 
all  cases,  save  one,  in  which  its  meaning  can  be  ascertained  from 
the  context,  it  denotes  the  side  opposite  that,  actual  or  assumed, 
of  the  speaker  or  writer.  The  examples  of  this  sort  are  Deu.  iii. 
20,  25;  Jos.  ii.  10;  vii.  7;  ix.  10;  xxii.  4;  xxiv.  2,  8,  14;  Jud.  v.  17; 
xi.  i8;Jer.  xxv.  22.  This  being  the  case,  while  one  can  infer 
nothing  with  reference  to  the  standpoint  of  the  writer  from  Deu.  iv. 
41  ff.  or  Jos.  ix.  I,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  from  Deu.  i.  i  and  5  that 
the  author  of  the  introduction  of  Deuteronomy,  at  least,  wrote  in 
western  Palestine.  See  also  Jud.  x.  8  and  i  Sam.  xxxi.  7.  The 
exception  above  mentioned,  Deu.  iii.  8,  without  doubt  a  slip  of  the 
pen,  confirms  this  conclusion.  See  farther,  Ezr.  viii.  36;  Neh.  ii. 
9;  iii.  7;  i  Kgs.  v.  4/iv.  24;  Isa.  viii.  23/ix.  i;  the  last  two  of 
which  were  written  in  Babylonia. 

X  The  interpretation  which  makes  this  passage  refer  to  the  con- 
quest of  the  kingdoms  of  Sihon  and  Og  (Keil)  is,  to  say  the  least, 
unwarranted. 

§  It  embodies  a  tradition  found  in  one  form  in  Num.  xxxii.  41, 
and  in  another  in  Jud.  x.  3  ff.  See  also  Jos.  xiii.  30;  i  Kgs.  iv. 
13;  I  Chr.  ii.  22  f.  On  the  relation  of  these  various  passages,  see 
Driver  on  Deu.  iii.  14  ff.,  and  Moore  on  Jud.  x.  3  ff. 


THE   PENTATFMCH  43 

concerning  the  king  is  a  part  of  the  body  of  the  book,  and 
evidently  Deuteronomic.  But  it  is  plain  from  i  Sam.  viii.  f. 
that  neither  Samuel,  nor  the  author  (or  authors)  of  these 
chapters,  was  acquainted  with  any  such  provision.*  Hence 
it  must  be  later  than  the  account  of  Saul's  election, 
which  the  most  conservative  scholars  do  not  think  of 
placing  before  the  date  of  the  division  of  the  kingdom, 
about  930  B.  c.f  The  law  providing  for  a  court  of  ap- 
peals at  Jerusalem  (xvii.  8  ff.)  has  been  supposed  to  indi- 
cate that  it  is  later  than  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat ;  but  it 
is  hardly  fair,  in  view  of  the  estimate  now  put  upon  the 
testimony  of  the  Chronicler,  to  quote  2  Chr.  xix.  5  ff.  in 
support  of  this  position.  The  passage  should  rather  be 
explained  as  an  echo  of  Deuteronomy.  Of  greater  sig- 
nificance are  iv.  19  and  xvii.  3  ;  for  they  seem  to  point  to 
the  time  of  Manasseh,  by  whom  the  worship  of  "the 
host  of  heaven  "  was  revived,  if  not  introduced.  See  2 
Kgs.  xxi.  3.  Compare,  however,  2  Kgs.  xvii.  16,  where 
this  is  among  the  sins  for  which  Israel  was  destroyed. 
Better  evidence  that  the  book  is  a  product  of  the  seventh 
century  b.  c.  is  found  in  its  teachings.  The  doctrine 
concerning  the  prophet  seems  to  require  such  a  conclu- 
sion. The  earliest  prophets  were  men,  not  of  words, 
but  of  deeds  ;  and  so  great  was  their  influence  in  the 
affairs  of  their  times,  that  even  kings  (i  Sam.  xvi.  4; 
I  Kgs.  xxi.  27)  dreaded  their  displeasure.  Amos  and 
those  who  followed  him  were  preachers.  They  threat- 
ened, indeed,  but  they  did  not  undertake  to  insure  the 
fulfilment  of  their  own  prophecies.  Finally  there  arose 
a  class  of  prophets  who  merely  reflected  the  wishes  of 

*  On  the  relation  between  this  passage  and  Deuteronomy,  see 
Driver,  /LOT,  175  ff. ;  Den.  212  f.;  Budde,  RSy  183  f . ;  comp. 
Wellhausen,  (7//,  243  ff. ;  GI,  259  ff. 

t  See  Keil,  EA  T,  i.  245  ff. 


44  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

their  more  or  less  powerful  patrons,  and  who,  by  thus 
encouraging  the  wicked  in  their  offences,  hastened  the 
day  of  retribution.  Now  the  prophet  of  Deuteronomy 
(xviii.)  is  a  preacher.  Moreover,  he  is  expressly  con- 
trasted with  the  false  prophet,  and  a  test  is  suggested 
{yv.  21  f.)  by  which  the  one  may  be  distinguished  from 
the  other.  Hence  this  passage,  and  the  document  to 
which  it  belonged,  is  probably  to  be  referred  to  the 
seventh  century,  when,  as  is  known  from  the  prophe- 
cies of  Jeremiah,  the  distinction  between  the  true  and 
the  false  prophet  needed  emphasis.*  The  same  result 
is  reached  if  the  doctrine  of  the  centralization  of  wor- 
ship be  considered.  The  earlier  prophets,  although  they 
speak  of  Jerusalem  as  the  abode  of  Yahweh  (Am.  i.  2 ; 
Isa.  viii.  18),  do  not  require  that  all  his  worshippers 
shall  pay  homage  to  him  in  the  temple  erected  by  Solo- 
mon. They  could  not  have  done  so  ;  for,  since  the  king- 
dom had  been  divided  at  the  instigation  of  the  prophet 
Ahijah  (i  Kgs.  xi.  30  f.),  and  the  erection  of  a  separate 
government  implied  the  establishment  of  a  distinct  wor- 
ship, the  doctrine  that  Yahweh  could  be  approached 
acceptably  only  at  Jerusalem  would  have  been  an  attack 
upon  the  divinely  guaranteed  independence  of  Israel, 
and,  if  taught  within  the  kingdom,  would  justly  have 
been  punished  as  treason.  When,  however,  the  northern 
kingdom  had  been  overthrown,  and  it  had  become  pos- 
sible to  make  Jerusalem  the  sole  shrine  of  the  Hebrew 
religion,  Hezekiah,  doubtless   under    Isaiah's   direction, 

*  The  earlier  references  to  false  prophets  are  Mic.  iii.  5  ff.  and 
Zph.  iii.  4.  Isa.  ix.  15/14  is  an  interpolation.  Jeremiah  repeatedly 
refers  to  them,  sometimes  devoting  long  passages  to  polemics 
against  them.  See  especially  xiv.  13  ff . ;  xxiii.  15  ff.;  xxvi.4ff. ; 
xxvii.  9  ff. ;  and  xxviii.  9  ff.  In  the  last  case  the  test  suggested  in 
Deuteronomy  is  applied. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  45 

took  the  first  steps  toward  this  end;*  and  seventy-five 
years  later  Josiah,  in  accordance  with  a  book,  in  which 
meanwhile  an  unknown  prophet  (or  prophets)  had  given 
to  old  material  a  form  and  setting  adapted  to  the  needs 
of  his  generation,  succeeded  for  the  time  being  in  con- 
centrating worship  in  the  place  which  Jehovah  had  evi- 
dently chosen  for  his  sanctuary.  Thus,  all  the  internal 
evidence  obtainable  points  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Deuteronomic  document  had  its  origin  in  the  seventh 
century  b.  c,  before  the  restoration  of  the  temple  by 
Josiah. 

It  is  possible  that  this  work  is  the  one  found  by  Hil- 
kiah,  but  it  cannot  be  identified  with  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy ;  for  this  latter  is  not  the  work  of  a  single  author. 
In  the  first  place,  as  already  noted,  it  contains  various 
fragments  from  the  other  documents ;  f  and  secondly, 
in  its  more  characteristic  portions  it  gives  evidence  of 
having  passed  through  the  hands  of  at  least  one  editor. 
The  fewest  changes  and  additions  are  found  in  chapters 
xii.-xxvi.  These  chapters,  therefore,  in  their  earliest 
form,  have  sometimes  been  identified  with  the  original 
Deuteronomic  document.  J     But  the  last  verse  of  xxviii. 

*  See  2  Kgs.  xviii.  4,  22.  2  Chr.  xxx.  5  says  tliat  he  sent  his 
invitation  to  the  passover  with  which  he  celebrated  the  reopening 
of  the  temple  "from  Beersheba  even  unto  Dan." 

t  According  to  Driver  {/LOT,  72)  traces  of  the  other  documents 
are  found  only  in  chapters  i,,  xxvii.,  and  xxxi.-xxxiv. ;  but  Bacon 
{TTEj  262)  refers  to  E  x.  6  f.  and  parts  of  xxv.  17-19.  See  also 
Holzin<^er,  EH,  ii.  10;  Oxford  Hex.  ii.  246  ff. 

X  See  VVellhausen,  C//,  195.  According  to  Cornill  {EAT,  25), 
D  consisted  of  xii.  i-xiii.  i  (in  a  shorter  form);  xiii.  2-19;  xiv.  3, 
21  aa*,  2ib  (?) ;  xiv.  22-xv.  3;  xv.  7-23;  xvi.  i-8*,  9-20;  xvi.  21- 
xvii.  7  (in  a  different  connection)  ;  xvii.  8-13*;  xviii.  1-13;  xix.  1-15, 
16-20*,  21  ;  XX.  (except  2-4  and  15-18) ;  parts,  no  longer  determin- 
able, of  xxi.-xxv. ;  xxvi.  1-15.    See,  farther,  Holzinger,  EH^  263  ff. 


46  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

{6c)l  xxix.  i)  was  evidently  meant  to  connect  this  chapter 
with  them  ;  and,  in  fact,  they  seem  incomplete  without 
it  There  are  similar  reasons  for  believing  that  chapters 
v.-xi.,  in  some  form,  belonged  to  the  first  edition.  The 
title  prefixed  to  them  was  undoubtedly  intended  to  con- 
nect them  with  xii.-xxvi.,  and  the  points  of  likeness  be- 
tween the  two  parts  seem  to  show  that  they  belong 
together.*  The  relation  between  i.-iv.  and  the  two  fol- 
lowing parts  of  the  book  is  not  so  close  as  theirs  to  each 
other.  These  chapters,  therefore,  with  the  exception  of 
the  first  verses  of  i.  and  the  last  of  iv.,  are  by  many  attri- 
buted to  an  editor  or  reviser.  Driver,  however  {Deu.j 
Ixvii.),  defends  the  genuineness  of  i.-iii.,  and  finds  little  diffi- 
culty in  believing  that  iv.  also  is  the  work  of  the  author 
of  V.  ff.  The  truth  probably  lies  between  these  opposing 
views ;  for,  while  a  good  part  of  the  chapters  under  con- 
sideration falls  below  the  higher  Deuteronomic  standard, 
it  is  not  true  that  the  style  and  content  are  throughout 
inferior.  In  other  words  there  is  a  mixture  in  them 
of  two  elements.  The  inferior  passages  are  generally 
marked  by  the  use  of  the  plural  of  the  second  person, 
when  Israel  is  addressed.  Nor  is  this  their  only  lin- 
guistic peculiarity.!    Moreover,  where  the  plural  pronoun 

*  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  language  and  contents  of  v.- 
xi.  as  compared  with  xii.-xxvi.,  see  Kuenen,  OCH^  112  ff. ;  also 
Westphal,  SP,  ii.  105  ff.;  Driver,  De7i.,  Ixv.  ff . ;  Mitchell, /i?Z:, 
1899,  rxjf. 

t  Various  words  and  expressions  characteristic  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic style  are  either  not  used  where  they  were  to  be  expected, 
or  used  in  senses  more  or  less  different  from  those  in  which  they 
appear  in  other  connections.  On  the  other  hand,  these  passages 
have  some  words  and  phrases  rarely  or  never  found  except  in  them 
or  in  similar  ])assages  in  other  parts  of  the  hook.  Thus,  while  the 
"covenant  "  of  these  passages  is  the  one  made  at  Horeb  (iv,  13,  23  ; 
see  also  v.  2,  3,  etc.),  that  of  those  in  which  the  singular  is  used 


THE  PENTATFMCH  47 

prevails  peculiar  prominence  is  usually  given  to  the 
events  that  transpired  at  Horeb,  and  peculiar  hostility 
toward  idolatry  manifested.*  These  passages  constitute 
the  greater  part  of  the  first  four  chapters.  Among  them 
are  interspersed  others  with  the  singular  of  the  second 
person,  in  which  both  the  style  and  the  standpoint  are 
genuinely  Deuteronomicf     The  latter,  or  most  of  them, 

is  the  covenant  with  the  fathers  (iv.  31  ;  see  also  vii.  9,  12,  ftc). 
Compare,  farther,  "  which  .  .  .  eyes  have  seen  "  (iv.  9;  see  also  vii. 
19;  X.  21  ;  etc.)  with  the  singular,  and  "eyes  have  seen"  (iii.  21; 
iv.  3  ;  see  also  xi.  7),  with  the  plural.  Finally,  four  of  the  seven 
words  and  phrases  quoted  by  Kuenen  {OCH^  121)  to  prove  that 
these  chapters  are  not  by  the  same  author  as  v.-xxvi.  are  peculiar, 
not  to  these  chapters  as  a  whole,  but  only  to  the  portions  of  them 
under  consideration.  (See  especially  the  name  Amorite,  i.  7,  19, 
etc.);  and  the  same  is  true  of  six  of  the  eight  terms  supposed  to 
betray  the  influence  of  P  (Driver,  Deti.,  Ixxi.).  See  farther, /^Z, 
1899,  71  ff. 

*  When  merely  alluding  to  the  theophany,  iv.  10,  Moses  uses 
the  singular  pronoun;  so  also  vv.  33  and  36;  but  when  he  under- 
takes to  describe  it,  vv.  11-14,  the  plural.  This  fact,  however, 
might  be  overlooked,  if,  on  returning  to  the  subject  in  the 
ninth  chapter,  he  did  not  again  change  numbers  {v.  8),  and  use 
the  plural  to  the  end  of  his  long  (ix.  8-x.  5)  account  of  the  tables 
of  the  covenant.  See  also  the  framework  of  chapter  v. ;  but  comp. 
X.  ID.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  subject  of  idolatry.  In  iv. 
19  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies  is  forbidden  in  the  singular ; 
but  the  four  preceding  verses,  with  their  detailed  prohibition  of  the 
use  of  images,  have  the  plural.  See  also  iv.  23,  25,  28;  vi.  14; 
vii.  4  f.,  25;  ix.  12-21  ;  xi.  16;  xii.  2-4;  xx.  18;  xxviii.  14;  xxix. 
16/17  f.,  24/25  f . ;  and  note  that  the  verses  cited,  or  the  longer 
passages  to  which  they  belong,  p:enerally  have  the  marks  of  inter- 
polations. Comp.  viii.  19;  xiii.  3/2,  7/6,  14/13  (.');  xxviii.  36; 
XXX.  I  7. 

t  For  examples  of  the  literary  character  of  this  element,  see  ii. 
7  and  25,  but  especially  iv.  37-40.  The  tone  and  purpose  of  the 
latter  passao^e  are  also  to  be  noted,  bein<,^  precisely  those  found  in 
vi.  4-13,  and  the  other  most  characteristic  portions  of  the  book.  The 


48  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

are  probably  remnants  of  the  original  introduction  to  D, 
and  the  parts  of  xxvii.,  xxix.,  xxx.,  and  xxxi.  in  the  same 
style  the  remains  of  the  conclusion  of  the  document.* 

The  dimensions  of  the  original  document  having  thus 
been  indicated,  the  question  recurs,  whether  it  was  the 
book  discovered  by  Hilkiah  the  priest  ;  in  other  words, 
whether  the  changes  which  it  finally  underwent,  or  any 
of  them,  were  made  before  its  recognition  as  the  law  of 
Moses.  The  account  of  the  reforms  instituted  upon  its 
discovery  indicates  that  it  required,  not  only  the  central- 
ization of  the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  the  capital,  on  which 

other  passages  in  which  the  singular  is  used  are  only  less  strikingly 
Deuteronomic. 

*  Dillmann  {NDJ,  378)  objects  to  the  genuineness  of  chapters 
xxix.  and  xxx.  on  the  ground  that  they  contain  certain  words  and 
phrases  not  found  elsewhere  in  Deuteronomy.  The  objection,  how- 
ever, holds  against  parts  of  xxix.  only  ;  for  all  but  two  of  the  twenty 
expressions  cited  are  in  this  chapter,  and,  in  fact,  with  one  further 
exception,  in  the  parts  of  it  in  which  the  second  person  is  plural. 
Moreover,  of  the  exceptions,  one,  n*T3,  is  really  Deuteronomic, 
occurring  with  the  meaning  impel  —  which  it  has  in  xxx.  17  —  in 
xiii.  6/5,  I  i/io,  and  i4/i3a,  and  in  the  sense  expel — which  it  has  in 
xxx.  I  and  4 —  in  xxii.  i  ;  while  the  other,  nbs,  oath,  curse^  although 
it  occurs  six  times  in  both  chapters  (xxix.  11/12,  13/14,  18/19, 
19/20,  20/21;  xxx.  7),  is  so  variously  used  that  it  can  hardly  be 
pronounced  characteristic.  The  further  objections  (Driver,  Dcii.^ 
Ixxiii.  f.),  that  the  connection  in  these  chapters  is  sometimes  imper- 
fect, and  that  the  standpoint  in  parts  of  them  is  different  from  that 
of  the  undoubted  portions  of  the  book,  are  likewise  relieved  by 
referring  the  disturbing  element  to  a  second  author.  Of  course, 
no  one  who  admits  the  genuineness  of  xxviii.,  or  the  substance  of 
it,  can  reject  xxx.  i-io  because,  like  iv.  30  f.,  it  presents  a  prospect 
of  return  from  captivity-  A  promise  of  this  sort  is  the  natural 
expression  of  faith  in  a  future  for  the  chosen  people  at  any  time 
after  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  See  Jer.  xvi.  14. 
On  the  language  of  these  final  chapters  see  further  JBL^  1899, 
74  ff. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  49 

Deuteronomy  is  a  unit,  but  also  the  utter  extinction  of 
the  rival  cults  against  which  those  parts  of  the  present 
book  where  the  plural  of  the  second  person  is  used  were 
evidently  directed.*  It  seems  necessary,  therefore,  to 
conclude  that  the  two  elements  of  which  Deuteronomy 
is  mainly  composed  were  united  before  the  year  621  b.  c. 

How  long  before  ?  is  the  next  question.  Many  hold 
that  the  book  reported  found  had  its  origin  just  before 
the  date  of  its  discovery  (Reuss,  GAT,  350  ff.  ;  Kuenen, 
OCH,  2 14  ff. ;  Dillmann,  NDJ,  613  ;  etc.),  and  some  that,  in 
fact,  Hilkiah  had  a  hand  in  its  preparation,  or  was  in  col- 
lusion with  its  author  or  authors.  See  especially  Cornill, 
EA  7*,  30.  But,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  no  proof  that 
Hilkiah  was  playing  a  part  in  the  matter,  and,  second,  as 
W.  R.  Smith  maintains  {OTJC,  363),  the  fact  that,  ac- 
cording to  2  Kgs.  xxiii.  9,  "  the  priests  of  the  high  places 
came  not  up  to  the  altar  of  Yahweh  in  Jerusalem  "  shows 
that  neither  he  nor  any  of  his  colleagues  could  have  dic- 
tated or  indorsed  Deu.  xviii.  6-S,  where  express  provision 
is  made  that  the  rural  Levite,  who  comes  to  the  central 
sanctuary  for  the  purpose,  "  shall  minister  in  the  name 
of  Yahweh  his  God."  If,  however,  the  book  was  actu- 
ally found,  the  probabilities  are  that  it  was  lost  before 
Josiah  came  to  the  throne,  and  that,  therefore,  it  had 
attained  its  actual  dimensions  in  the  reign  of  the  wicked 
and  idolatrous  Manasseh. 

The  process  by  which  it  had  become  what  it  was 
when  discovered,  according  to  the  latest  theory,  was  that 
of  compilation  ;  a  document,  itself  composite,  whose  au- 
thor (670  B.  c),  when  freely  writing,  naturally  used  the 

*  On  the  first  point,  see  2  Kgs.  xxiii.  21-23,  where  the  first  cele- 
bration of  the  passover  at  Jerusalem  is  described;  and  on  the 
second,  the  passages  already  cited  (pp.  9  f.)  to  show  that  the  book 
found  was  some  form  of  Deuteronomy. 


so  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

plural  of  the  second  person  in  addresses  to  Israel,  being 
wrought  into  an  earlier  compilation,  whose  author  (690 
B.  c.)  always  employed  the  singular,  by  a  redactor  (650 
B.  c),  who  added  more  or  less  as  he  proceeded.*  But 
the  general  similarity  of  style  and  tone  in  the  laws,  in 
spite  of  the  variety  of  their  content,  indicates  that,  with 
some  exceptions,  they  were  brought  together  by  a  single 
collector  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  affinity  between 
the  additions  attributed  to  the  redactor  and  the  supposed 
contributions  of  the  author  of  the  later  of  the  documents 
used  seem  to  justify  the  inference  that  the  two  writers 
were  oncf  In  other  words,  it  is  probable  that  the  book 
found  by  Hilkiah  was  a  revised  and  enlarged  edition,  if 
one  may  use  the  term,  of  the  work  of  the  original  Deu- 
teronomist.  Those  portions  of  the  present  book  which 
cannot  be  referred  to  one  of  these  two  sources  must  be 
attributed  to  later  editors,  compilers,  or  transcribers. 

*  This  is  the  view  of  Steuernagel  {DJ,  vi.  ff.),  who  thus  dis- 
tributes the  material  used  by  the  redactor  {Deii.^  iv.  fF.):  — 

Sg.  —  vi.  4  f.,  10-13,  15  ;  vii.  i-4a,  6,  9,  i.2b-i6a,  17-21,  23  f.j 
viii.  2-5,  7-14,  17  f. ;  ix.  i-4a,  5-7a;  x.  12,  14  f.  21,  (22?)  ;  xi.  10- 
12,  14  f.;  xii.  13  £.,  i6-2oa,  21,  26  f . ;  xiv.  23aa,  24-27a,  28-29a ; 
XV.  19  f.;  xvi.  I  £.,  5-7,  9-1 1,  13-15,  18*;  xvii.  8*,  lob  ;  xviii.  i  f.*, 
3  f.,  6,  8;  xix.  2,  3b,  4-8a,  9b,  10*,  15-19  a*;  xiii.  2/i-4/3a,  6/5- 
io/9aa*  ii/iob,  13/12  f.,  16/15-18/17;  XX.  io-i7aa,  19  f. ;  xxii.  i- 
4,  6-7a,  8;  xxiii.  16  f.*,  20,  25  f. ;  xxiv.  (6),  10-22;  (xxv.  4);  xv. 
I  £.,  7-15,  18;  xxv.  1-3,  ii-i2a;  xxvi.  2*,  5-1 5a;  xxviii.  i-8a, 
I2-I3a,  15-20*,  23-25a,  43-46;  xxx.  14,  i9b-2o;  xxxi.  9aa,  10,  lib. 

PL  — iv.  45  ;  v.  1-4,  20/23-28/31  ;  ix.  9,  11,  13-17,  21,  25-29;  x. 
1-5,  II,  i6f. ;  xi.  2-5,  7,  16  f.,  22-28;  xii.  i*  (?),  8,  9*,  10  f.,  12*; 
xvi.  2i-xvii.  7,  8a*,  9*,  11-13*;  xviii.  io-i2a;  xix.  3a,  (3-7*),  iif., 
(14);  xxi.  1-4,6-8,  10-23;  xxii.  5,  9-29;  xxiii.  1-4,  8-15,  18  f., 
22-24;  xxiv.  1-5,  7;  xxv.  5-10,  i3-i6a. 

t  On  the  first  point  see,  e.  g.,  the  use  of  the  phrase  "  put  away 
evil  from  thy  midst,"  xiii.  6/5  (Stcucrnagel's  Sg.):  xvii.  7  (Steuer- 
nngel's  PI.);  etc.  :  on  the  second,  the  condemnation  of  idolatry,  vii. 
5  and  25  (Steucrnagcrs  R);  ix.  13-17  (IM.);  etc. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  51 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  relative  age  of  D  and  the 
other  prophetic  documents.  It  is  certainly,  even  in  its 
original  form,  later  than  cither  of  them  ;  for  it  is  largely 
a  reproduction  of  their  contents.  This  indebtedness  of 
D  to  J  and  E  is  most  apparent  in  the  legal  portions  of 
Deuteronomy ;  some  of  its  statutes  being  copied  almost 
verbatim  from  the  other  documents,*  while  others  are 
laws  from  J  or  E  varied  or  expanded  as  they  would  nat- 
urally be  by  a  fluent  writer,!  or  modified  to  suit  the 
conditions  under  which  the  Deuteronomic  document 
originated. J  The  historical  portions  of  Deuteronomy 
also  betray  the  acquaintance  of  its  authors  with  both  the 
Yahwistic  and  the  Elohistic  narrative.  It  appears  in 
various  incidental  allusions  scattered  through  the  book,§ 

*  Examples:  xiv.  21b  (Ex.  xxiii.  19b;  xxxiv.  26b);  xvi.  19b 
(Ex.  xxiii.  8).     See  further  Oxford  Hex.  i.  73  f. 

t  Examples:  xvi.  9-15  (Ex.  xxiii.  16;  xxxiv.  22);  xvii.  2-7 
(Ex.  xxii.  19/20);  xxiii.  19/20  f.  (Ex.  xxii.  24/25). 

X  Deu.  XV.  12-18  is  a  reproduction  of  Ex.  xxi.  2-6,  the  object  of 
which  at  first  sight  seems  to  be  the  inculcation  of  generosity 
toward  released  slaves;  but  the  careful  reader  will  notice  that, 
according  to  Ex.  xxi.  6,  the  ceremony  prescribed  is  to  take  place  at 
a  sanctuary,  while,  according  to  Deu.  xv.  7,  the  door  at  which  the 
slave's  ear  is  to  be  pierced  is  that  of  his  master's  dwelHng;  in  other 
words,  that  the  latter  ignores  the  local  sanctuaries  recognized  by 
the  former.  The  hostility  of  the  Deuteronomist  to  these  old  sanc- 
tuaries is  still  more  apparent  in  xvi.  1-17,  but  especially  in  xix. 
1-13.  Comp.  Ex.  xxiii.  14-18;  xxxiv.  18,  22 f. ;  xxi.  12-14.  In  the 
last  passage  13b  has  been  changed  to  prepare  the  reader  for  the 
Deuteronomic  form  of  the  law.  See  v.  14  and  i  Kgs.  ii.  28. 
Thus,  in  one  form  or  another,  almost  all  the  statutes  of  Ex.  xxi.- 
xxiii.,  except  those  relating  to  damages,  xxi.  iS-xxii.  14/13,  reap- 
pear in  Deuteronomy.  See  Driver,  H^OT,  73  if.;  also  Oxford 
Hex.  i.  75  f. 

§  The  following  are  some  of  them:  i.  S  (Gen.  xv.  18);  iv.  3. 
(Num.  XXV.  3);  vi.  16  (Ex.  xvii.  7);  vii.  20  (Ex.  xxiii.  28);  viii.  3  (Ex. 
xvi.  15);  viii.  15  (Num.  xxi.  6;  Ex.  xvii.  6);  ix.  22  (Num.  xi.  3,  34)  ; 


52  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

but  more  clearly  in  the  extended  passages  in  which  cer- 
tain series  of  events  are  reviewed.*  In  these  last  the 
order  of  the  events  mentioned,  as  well  as  the  phraseology 
of  the  references  to  them,  is  proof  of  dependence  upon 
the  parallel  passages,  partly  Yahwistic  and  partly  Elo- 
histic,  in  the  books  of  Exodus  and  Numbers.! 

The  dependence  of  D  upon  J  and  E,  and  therefore  the 
priority  of  the  last  two  to  the  first,  is  universally  admitted. 
There  is  also  general  agreement  to  the  effect  that  both 
J  and  E,  in  some  form,  are  as  early  as,  if  not  earlier  than, 
the  earliest  of  the  prophets  whose  works  have  been  pre- 
served ;  this  conclusion  being  based,  not  so  much  on  un- 
mistakable references  to  these  documents,;]:  as  upon  the 
relation  of  the  ideas  of  their  authors  to  those  of  Amos 
and  his  immediate  successors.  The  relative  date  of  J 
and  E,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  question  on  which  scholars 
are  still  divided.  Dillmann  and  others,  as  has  already  been 
stated,  hold  to  the  priority  of  E  ;  §  but  the  majority  main- 
tain that  J  is  the  earlier,  and  this,  on  the  whole,  is  the 
more  defensible  position.  In  its  favor  is  the  fact  that,  in 
cases  like  Gen.  xx.  and  xxvi.  7-1 1,  in  which  the  same 

xi.  6  (Num.  xvi.  i,  32)  ;  xiii.  4  (Ex.  xiii.  4)  ;  xxiii.  4  (Num.  xxii.  5)  ; 
xxiv.  9  (Num.  xii.  10);  xxv.  17  (Ex.  xvii.  8  ff.). 

*  Compare  especially  i.  19-45  with  Num.  xiii.  f. ;  ii.  8b-iii.  7 
with  Num.  xxi.  iib-35;  and  ix.  9-x.  10  with  Ex.  xxxii.-xxxiv. 

f  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  see  Oxford  Hex.  i. 
70  ff. 

X  Kittel  (////,  i.  82)  cites  the  following  passages  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Amos  and  Hosea  as  proof  that  these  prophets  were  ac- 
quainted with  both  J  and  E  :  Am.  i.  11  (Gen.  xxvii.  40,  JE);  ii.  9 
(Num.  xiii.  27  ff.,  JE);  ii.  10  [Gen.  xlviii.  22,  E]  ;  iv.  1 1  (Gen.  xix. 
25,  J);  Hos.  ix.  10  (Num.  xxv.  3,  E) ;  xii.  4/3a  (Gen.  xxv.  26a,  E); 
xii.  4/3b,  5/4  (Gen.  xxxii.  25  ff,  J);  xii.  13/12  (Gen.  xxxi.  41,  E ; 
xxvii.  43,  JE ;  xxix.  18  £f.,  E)  ;  xii.  14/13  [Deu.  xxxiv.  10,  E]  :  comp. 
Driver,  I  LOT,  123. 

§  See  Dillmann,  NDJ,  628  ff. ;  Kittel,  ////,  i.  76. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  53 

Story  appears  in  different  versions,  J  is  generally  simpler 
and  more  original  than  the  other.  A  further  indication 
that  J  in  its  primitive  form  is  the  earlier  is  found  in  the 
naiveti^  of  the  author's  conceptions  of  God  and  his  rela- 
tions with  men,  as  compared  with  those  of  the  L^lohistic 
narrator.*  Thirdly,  the  code  of  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.,  which 
furnished  the  basis  of  D  and  probably  originally  came 
toward  the  end  of  E's  account  of  the  Exodus,  marks  a 
stage  of  progress  in  the  production  of  a  history  of  the 
Hebrews  beyond  that  which  had  been  reached  when  the 
Yahwistic  document  was  written,  f  Finally,  when  these 
documents  are  examined  separately  with  reference  to 
their  age,  the  evidence,  as  will  presently  appear,  seems 
to  make  it  necessary  to  conclude  that  J  antedates  E  by 
at  least  half  a  century. 

J  is  earlier  than  E,  but  J  dates  from  a  period  consider- 
ably later  than  that  of  Moses.  It  furnished  parts  of  the 
account  of  the  death  and  burial  of  the  law-giver  in  Deu. 
xxxiv.  In  Gen.  xxxvi.  31  a  list  of  the  early  kings  of 
Edom,  probably  taken  from  it,J  is  introduced  by  the 
words :  "  These  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of 
Edom  before  a  king  of  the  children  of  Israel  ruled,"  sc. 
over  that  country.  It  is  plain  that  these  words  could  not 
have  been  written  before  the  reign  of  David  (2  Sam.  viii. 

*  The  doctrine,  common  to  E  with  P,  that  the  name  Yahiueh 
was  unknown  until  the  Exodus,  is  unmistakable  evidence  of  a  com- 
paratively advanced  stage  of  theoloi^ical  development.  Compare, 
also,  Gen.  xxi.  17  f.  with  xvi.  7  f . ;  xxii.  11  f.  with  xviii.  13  f.;  xxxi. 
7-9  with  XXX.  41  ff. ;  etc. 

t  Cornill  {EA  7",  37)  compares  the  terms  of  the  covenant  in  Ex. 
xxxiv.  (J)  with  the  ten  commandments  in  xx.  (E);  but  they  are  not 
parallels,  the  Elohistic  analogue,  as  Bacon  has  shown  (7'7"£',  1 12  f. ; 
JBL,  xii.  29  f.),  being  found  in  the  fragments  of  another  covenant 
in  XX.  22-26,  xxii.  28/29-30/31,  and  xxiii.  10-33. 

X  See  Wellhausen,  C//,  52;  Bacon,  GG^  1S4;  etc. 


54  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

14).  Gen.  Lx.  25,  xii.  6,  and  xiii.  7  are  supposed  to  indi- 
cate a  somewhat  later  date,  since  the  Canaanites,  etc., 
were  not  subdued  until  the  reign  of  Solomon  (i  Kgs.  ix. 
20  f.).  These  passages  alone  would  hardly  be  a  sufficient 
foundation  for  a  statement  concerning  the  date  of  the 
work  in  question  ;  but  there  is  further  evidence.  The 
fact,  recognized  by  scholars  of  the  most  divergent  views 
on  other  points,  that  the  document  was  one  of  the  sources, 
not  only  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  also  of  the  book  of 
Joshua,*  if  not  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,f  proves 
that  it  cannot  have  been  written  before  the  Conquest ; 
and  the  further  circumstance  that  the  author  of  it  in  Jos. 
X.  1 3  quotes  from  the  "  Book  of  Jashar  "  —  a  work  to  which 
belonged  David's  lament  for  Saul  and  Jonathan  (2  Sam. 
i.  18  ff.)  and,  according  to  the  Septuagint  (i  Kgs.  viii. 
5 3  J),  a  tetrastich  by  Solomon  on  the  occasion  of  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  temple,  —  indicates  that  it  originated  some 
time  after  the  beginning  of  the  regal  period.  Nor  is  this 
all.  This  document,  as  well  as  E,  expressly  prohibits  the 
use  of  symbols  for  the  Deity  (Ex.  xxxiv.  17).  If,  how- 
ever, such  a  prohibition  was  promulgated  by  Moses,  is  it 

*  The  intimate  relation  of  Joshua  to  the  Pentateuch  was  first 
observed  by  Geddes  {HB^  i.  xxi.).  For  characteristic  passages  from 
J,  see  XV.  14-19  and  xvii.  14-18. 

t  Bleek  {Beitrdge\  as  has  already  been  noted,  was  the  first  (1822) 
to  clearly  define  the  connection  between  Joshua  and  the  Pen- 
tateuch. Later  Stahelin  {KU^  1843)  applied  the  Supplementary 
Hypothesis  to  the  other  three  books,  and  concluded  that  his  Jeho- 
vist  was  the  author,  not  only  of  the  Hexateuch,  but  of  the  greater 
part  of  Judges  and  i  Samuel.  See  also  £"^4  7",  93.  Schrader  (in 
de  Wette's  Einleitung,  359)  asserts  that  the  hand  of  the  Yahwist 
(his  "  Prophetic  Narrator  ")  can  be  traced  as  far  as  i  Kgs.  x.  liudde 
(A'.S')  makes  J  one  of  the  sources  of  Judges  and  Samuel,  and  Cornill 
formerly  held  that  it  entered  into  the  composition  even  of  i  Kings. 
The  latter,  however,  has  abandoned  this  position  {EAT,  93  f.,  106). 

J  See  Klostermann  on  i  Kgs.  viii.  12  f. 


THE   PENTATEUCH  55 

not  strange  that  not  only  Micah  and  the  Danitcs,  in  the 
unsettled  period  of  the  Judges,  when  "every  man  did 
that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes  "  (Jud.  xvii.  5  f.,  13  ; 
xviii.  5,  31),  but  David,  the  chosen  of  Yahweh,  used  the 
ephod  —  an  image  of  some  sort,  and  not  a  garment  —  and 
teraphim  in  their  approaches  to  God  unrebuked  (i  Sam. 
xix.  13  ;  xxi.  9;  xxiii.  6,  9  ff.  ;  xxx.  7  f.)  ?  See  also  the 
case  of  Gideon  (Jud.  viii.  27att).*  These  early  records 
are  best  explained  by  supposing  that  the  use  of  images 
was  not  absolutely  prohibited  until  after  the  revolt  of  the 
northern  tribes  and  the  establishment  of  the  sanctuary 
with  a  golden  calf  at  Bethel  (i  Kgs.  xii.  28).  There  is 
therefore  good  ground  for  believing,  with  most  scholars, 
that  the  Yahwistic  document  was  written  toward  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century  b.  c.  The  evident  partiality 
of  its  author  for  the  tribe  and  kingdom  of  Judah  indicates 
that  it  had  its  origin  in  southern  Palestine.! 

E,  on  the  other  hand,  was  probably  written  in  northern 
Palestine.  At  any  rate,  the  author  seems  to  have  been 
particularly  interested  in  the  persons  and  places  that 
would  naturally  appeal  to  a  native  of  that  region.J     Its 

*  The  rest  of  this  verse  is  an  addition  to  the  text  much  later  than 
the  original  story.     See  Moore,  /.  /. 

f  Instances  of  such  partiality  are:  the  association  of  Abraham 
especially  with  Hebron  (Gen.  xiii.  18;  xviii.  i);  the  prominence 
given  to  Judah  in  the  story  of  Joseph  (Gen.  xxxvii.  26;  xliii.  3  fT. ; 
xliv.  18  ff.),  and  to  his  descendants  in  the  blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen. 
xlix.  8  ff.)  and  the  account  of  the  conquest  of  Palestine  (Jud.  i.  i  ff.) ; 
and  the  fulness  of  the  treatment  of  the  reign  of  David  (2  Sam.). 
Compare  Kuenen,  OCH,  24S  ff.,  who  holds  that  J  in  its  original 
form  was  a  product  of  the  fuller  literary  and  spiritual  life  of  the 
northern  kingdom. 

X  It  is  he  who  describes  at  length  the  rise  of  Joseph  to  power  in 
Egypt  (Gen.  xl.  f.),  and  foretells  the  greatness  of  his  posterity  (Deu. 
xxxiii.  13  ff.) ;  who  makes  Reuben,  rather  than  Judah,  the  spokes- 
man among  his  brethren   (Gen.   xxxvii.   22;    xlii.    22,   37);    who 


S6  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

general  features,  as  has  already  been  shown,  are  such  as 
to  make  the  impression  that  it  is  later  than  J.  It  is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  to  meet  indications  of  its  real  age 
in  the  Pentateuch  ;  *  also  to  discover  that  it  was  a  more 
extensive  work  than  was  at  first  suspected,  that,  in  fact, 
it  was  a  principal  source  in  the  compilation  of  the  book 
of  Joshua,  t  If,  however,  it  is  later  than  J  and  earlier 
than  D,  it  seems  safe  to  conclude  that  it  was  written 
about  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  b.  c,  when, 
moreover,  the  conditions  in  Israel  were  peculiarly  favor- 
able to  its  production. 

The  first  step  in  the  compilation  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
the  union  of  J  and  E  into  a  single  work.  This,  however, 
was  not  taken  until  both  documents  had  undergone  con- 
siderable changes  in  the  way  of  enlargement  and  modifi- 
cation at  the  hand  of  more  or  less  sympathetic  revisers. 
The  proof  of  this  assertion  is  found  in  the  slighter  vari- 
ations in  style  and  content  of  certain  passages  from  the 
body  of  the  document  in  which  they  are  now  found  incor- 

notices  the  position  and  achievements  of  Joshua  (Ex.  xvii.  9  ff. ; 
xxxiii.  II  ;  Deu.  xxxi.  14);  and  who  oftenest  mentions  the  shrines 
dear  to  Israel,  —  Shechem  (Gen.  xxxiii.  i8b),  Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii. 
17  f. ;  XXXV.  I  ff.),  and  Beersheba  (Gen.  xxi.  31;  xxii.  19;  xlvi. 
2-5a). 

*  The  phrase  "land  of  the  Hebrews"  in  Gen.  xl.  15  could  hardly 
have  been  used  before  the  occupation  of  Palestine  ;  the  reference 
to  the  "  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh,"  Num.  xxi.  14,  implies  that 
the  Conquest  was  long  past  ;  while  the  use  of  the  term  "  prophet" 
in  Gen.  xx.  7,  if  i  Sam.  ix.  9  has  any  value,  forbids  one  to  place 
its  date  earlier  than  the  tenth  century  b.  c. 

t  The  most  important  extract  from  E  in  this  book  is  chapter 
xxiv.  The  Elohist,  as  well  as  the  Yahwist,  has  been  supposed  to 
have  contributed  to  the  composition  of  the  later  histories,  espe- 
cially Judges  and  Samuel;  but  in  this,  as  in  the  other  case,  the 
evidence  adduced  has  not  proven  satisfactory.  See  the  authorities 
quoted  with  reference  to  the  extent  of  the  Yahwistic  document. 


THE  PENTATEUCH 


57 


poratcd.  These  additions  were  not,  in  the  case  of  cither 
document,  all  made  at  the  same  time.  The  older,  which 
some  regard  as  excerpts  from  independent  narratives,  are 
designated  by  J  ^  or  E  ^  ;  the  later,  by  J  ^  or  E^  etc.* 

The  date  of  the  union  of  J  and  E  into  the  whole  usu- 
ally designated  by  JE  must  be  fixed  with  reference  to  D. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  the  first  two  were  still  separate 
when  the  original  of  the  last  was  written,  for  U  throughout 
gives  evidence  that,  although  its  author  was  acquainted 
with  both,  he  followed  almost  exclusively  the  later. f  On 
the  other  hand,  there  is  evidence  that,  when  this  docu- 
ment was  revised  and  enlarged,  the  other  two  had  already 
been  united  ;  for  the  author  (or  authors)  of  the  additions 
in  which  the  plural  of  the  second  person  is  habitually 
used  follows  neither  J  nor  E,  but  a  compilation  such  as 
has  been  preserved  in  the  Pentateuch.  J  If,  therefore,  as 
has  been  shown,  the  book  found  by  Hilkiah  was  D  in  its 
revised  and  enlarged  form,  and  it  had  its  origin  before 

*  Among  the  passages  referred  to  J  ^  are  Gen.  iv.  3-1 6a,  and 
the  fragments  of  the  Yahwistic  account  of  the  Flood  preserved  in 
Gen.  vi.-viii.;  among  those  credited  to  E '-,  the  story  of  the  golden 
calf  in  Ex.  xxxii.  1-6  and  15-24,  and  Num.  xi.  16  f.  and  245-30. 
See  Cornill,  EA  T,  39  ff.,  43  f. 

t  A  distinct  trace  of  the  influence  of  J  is  seen  in  the  repeated 
references  in  D  to  the  promise  to  the  fathers.  See  vi.  10,  etc.  (Gen. 
xxiv.  7  ;  etc.).  An  exception  to  the  rule  above  stated  is  the  law 
concerning  the  annual  feasts,  Deu.  xvi.  1-17,  which  seems  to  be- 
tray dependence  on  J.     See  Ex.  xiii,  4;  xxxiv.  22  f.,  25. 

X  See  the  story  of  the  spies,  Deu.  i.  19-45,  where  vv.  24  f.,  27, 
and  40-43  recall  the  parts  of  Num.  xiii.  f.  (xiii.  23  f.,  29;  xiv.  25h, 
39b-4o)  usually  ascribed  to  E,  while  vv.  28-30,  32  f.,  35  f.  and  39 
reflect  the  Yahwistic  or  editorial  features  (xiii.  28;  xiv.  9b,  14; 
xiii.  30  ;  xiv.  24,  3,  31)  of  the  composite  narrative  ;  also  Deu.  ix. 
9-x.  5  and  the  parallel  passages  in  Ex.  xxxii.  (9  f.  [J E],  15  [E], 
19  [E],  20  [E],  ii-i4[JE]),  and  xxxiv.  (1-4  [J]).  Compare  Ox- 
ford Hex.  i.  1 73  f. 


58  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

Josiah  began  to  reign,  it  follows  that  the  compilation 
JE  also  must  antedate  639  b.  c.  ;  but  how  much  earlier 
it  was  made,  there  seems  to  be  no  means  of  determining. 

The  next  step  in  the  production  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
the  insertion  into  JE  of  D  in  its  revised  and  enlarged 
form.  This  would  naturally  follow  soon  after  its  pub- 
lication ;  yet  it  is  doubtful  if  it  was  accomplished  much, 
if  any,  before  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  monarchy. 
The  work  was  probably  done  by  a  second  redactor,  who 
made  such  changes  and  additions  as  seemed  to  him 
necessary  to  adapt  it  to  his  purpose.*  It  is  supposed  to 
have  been  inserted  into  the  place  formerly  occupied  by 
Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.,  the  latter  being  removed  to  its  present 
position  in  the  account  of  the  sojourn  at  Sinai  to  make 
room  for  it.  At  the  same  time  most  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic  touches  in  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Numbers  were 
added  t  and  the  book  of  Joshua  recast  to  furnish  a 
proper  conclusion  to  the  resulting  Hexateuch.J 

The  date  of  the  Priestly  document  also,  as  has  been 
intimated,  is  in  dispute ;  one  party  holding  that  it  is  one 
of  the  oldest,  the  other  as  stoutly  maintaining  that  it  is 
the  latest,  of  the  sources  from  which  the  Pentateuch  was 
compiled.  The  former  opinion  is  largely  based  on  cer- 
tain passages  in  Deuteronomy  which  are  supposed  to 
betray  an  acquaintance  with  P  ;  but  it  will  be  found  upon 

*  One  cannot  otherwise  explain  the  divergences  that  occur, 
especially  in  the  first  and  the  last  chapters  of  the  present  book, 
where  the  plural  is  employed.  Some  of  these  passages,  however, 
are  douhtless  of  still  later  origin. 

t  On  the  Deuteronomic  element  in  these  books,  see  p.  23. 

\  Compare  Kittel  (////,  i.  75  f.),  who  holds  that  D  was  united  with 
J  and  E  when  the  last  two  were  united  with  each  other,  and  that 
the  compiler  of  this  threefold  work  was  the  author  of  the  additions 
to  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua.  Dillmann  {NDJ,  Gjy  fF.),  on  the 
other  hand,  claims  that  the  third  document  was  not  D,  but  P. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  59 

investigation  that  the  passages  usually  cited,  if  they 
belong  to  the  original  document,  have  not  the  signifi- 
cance attributed  to  them,  and  if  they  really  indicate 
dependence  upon  P,  they  are  later  additions  to  the  work.* 
The  majority  of  critical  scholars,  therefore,  regard  P  as  a 
product  of  Exilic  and  post-Exilic  times.  This  view  is 
supported  by  a  variety  of  evidence.  In  the  first  place, 
a  comparison  of  P  with  J,  E,  and  D  shows  that  it  was 
written  by  a  person  (or  persons)  acquainted  with  them  ; 
that,  in  fact,  it  is  the  final  product  of  a  process  of  devel- 
opment of  which  they  mark  the  previous  stages.  Its 
relative  lateness  is  attested  by  its  general  features,  the 
maturity  displayed  in  its  plan  and  its  ideas.  It  appears 
also  in  a  multitude  of  particulars,  especially  the  legislative 
parallels  between  it  and  E  and  D.  Take,  e.  g.,  the  law 
of  asylum.  It  is  first  found,  doubtless  in  its  original 
form,  in  Ex.  xxi.  12  ff.,  where  it  takes  but  three  verses. 
It  is  repeated  with  additions  in  Num.  xxxv.  9  ff.,  and 
again  in  Deu.  xix.  i  ff. ;  but  the  extent  and  character  of 
the  additions  in  the  former  of  the  last  two  passages  show 
that  the  order  of  their  origin  has  been  reversed,  that  the 
one  in  Numbers,  and  not  the  one  in  Deuteronomy,  is 
the  final  form  of  the  law  in  question. 

The  result  of  the  comparison  of  P  with  the  other  docu- 
ments is  confirmed  from  other  directions  ;  first  by  the 
silence  of  the  history  of  the  pre-Exilic  period  with  refer- 
ence to   it  and  its  peculiar  features.     The  tabernacle,f 

*  Thus,  the  three  passages  most  frequently  cited,  i.  23,  xiv.  4  ff., 
and  xxiv.  8,  are  all  either  wholly  or  partly  of  a  secondary  character. 
Moreover,  i.  23  was  not  derived  from  Num.  xiii.  2-15,  as  is  shown 
by  the  omission  of  Joshua  from  v.  36;  xiv.  4  ff.  is  an  un-Deutcr- 
onomic  interpolation;  and  xxiv.  8  betrays  a  sacerdotal  origin  or 
expansion. 

t  In  1  Sam.  ii.  22  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  an  interpolation 
not  found  in  the  Greek  Version;  and  in   i  Kgs.  viii.  4  the  tent  in 


6o  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

the  high  priest,  the  day  of  atonement,  and  other  like 
objects  and  institutions  seem  to  have  been  unknown 
during  this  whole  period.*  The  testimony  of  the  pre- 
Exilic  prophets  is  even  stronger ;  for  they  express 
themselves  respecting  the  matters  with  which  this  docu- 
ment is  most  concerned  in  such  terms  as  prove  that, 
although  the  movement  which  produced  it  was  already 
under  way,  the  document  itself  had  not  yet  made  its 
appearance.  Thus,  Amos  (v.  21  ff.)  and  Isaiah  (i.  10  ff.) 
both  disparage  feasts  and  offerings  as  they  would  not 
have  done  had  P  already  been  recognized  as  the  law  of 
God ;  and  Jeremiah,  himself  a  priest  as  well  as  a  prophet, 
says  expressly  (vii.  22)  that  God  gave  the  fathers,  when 
he  delivered  them  from  Egypt,  no  command  concerning 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices.  The  last  passage  is 
doubtless  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  Jer.  viii.  8, 
where  the  prophet  accuses  the  scribes  of  his  time  of  deal- 
ing falsely  with  the  law  of  Yahweh.  The  two  seem  to 
show  that,  when  Jeremiah  wrote,  laws  such  as  now  consti- 
tute a  large  part  of  the  priestly  document  were  in  pro- 
cess of  codification,  but  that  the  prophet,  at  any  rate,  did 
not  regard  them  as  of  divine,  or  even  Mosaic  origin. 
The  testimony  of  Ezekiel  is  to  the  same  effect.  His 
prophecies,  when  examined  in  the  light  of  the  contents 
of  P,  show  that,  while  there  is  an  element  in  the  latter 
which  apparently  antedates  the  former,  there  are  parts 
of  the  document  which  betray  the  dependence  of  their 
author  (or  authors)  upon  Ezekiel,  and  that,  therefore, 
the  document  as  a  whole  must  be  referred  to  a  period 

question  is  the  tent  provided  for  the  ark  by  David,  and  not,  as  it 
is  called,  *'  the  tent  of  meeting"  described  in  Exodus. 

*  See  Wcllhausen,  GI,  40  ff.,  153  ff.,  112  ff.;  W.  R.  Smith, 
OTJC,  254  ff. ;  comp.  Green,  MP^  85  ff . ;  Lex  Mosaica  (French), 
133  ff. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  6i 

subsequent  to  that  in  which  the  prophet  labored.*  Ila;;- 
gai,  also,  and  the  authors  of  Zch.  i.-viii.  and  Malachi, 
seem  to  ignore  it ;  which  indicates  that  it  was  unknown 
in  Palestine  until  some  time  after  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  b.  c.f 

The  terminus  ad  qiian  is  more  easily  and  satisfactorily 
determined.  In  the  year  458  b.  c,  according  to  Ezr.  vii., 
Ezra,  "a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses,"  came  from 
Babylon  to  Jerusalem  "to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and 
judgments."  At  first  his  countrymen  received  him  with 
favor,  even  with  enthusiasm,  but  their  ardor  seems  to 
have  been  short-lived.  At  any  rate,  it  was  fourteen 
years  before,  with  the  assistance  of  Nehemiah,  he  per- 
suaded them  to  recognize  the  divine  authority  of  the  law 
that  he  had  brought  with  him.  Finally,  however,  in  444 
he  accomplished  his  purpose,  and  "  the  law  of  Moses  " 
became  the  code  of  the  restored  community.  But  this 
law,  according  to  Neh.  viii.  14,  contained,  among  other 
things,  the  instructions  concerning  the  celebration  of  the 

*  The  relative  age  of  Ezekiel  and  the  above-mentioned  elements 
of  P  is  indicated  by  their  respective  views  on  the  subject  of  the 
priests  and  the  Levites.  In  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  and  the  other  passages 
of  like  character  no  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites,  unless 
it  has  been  interpolated,  appears.  Ezekiel  first  makes  such  a  dis- 
tinction (xliv.)  ;  but  he  has  no  high  priest.  In  the  body  of  P  the 
priesthood  is  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  sons  of  Aaron  (Num. 
xviii.  I  ff.),  with  Aaron  himself,  and  his  eldest  son  after  him,  in  a 
princely  position  at  their  head  (Num.  xvii.;  xx.  22  ff.).  See  Well- 
hausen,  GI,  126  ff. ;  Kuenen,  OCH,  293  ff . ;  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC, 
374  f . ;  Oxford  Hex.  i.  127  f. ;  comp.  Green,  MI\  127  ff . ;  Lex 
Mosaica  (Spencer),  510  ff. 

f  Kuenen  ((9C//,  179  ff.)  agrees  with  the  above  statement  so  far 
as  it  concerns  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  but  he  finds  references  to  Lev. 
xxii.  20  ff.  and  Num.  xviii.  21  ff.  in  Mai.  i.  8  and  iii.  10.  See  also 
Holzinger,  EH,  428;  comp.  Cornill,  EAT,  52  f.  ;  Nowack,  on 
Mai.  iii.  22/iv.  4. 


62  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

feast  of  tabernacles  found  in  Lev.  xxiii.  39  ff.  ;  *  hence 
it  must  either  have  been,  or  contained,  some  form  of  P. 
In  either  case  this  document  cannot  be  later  than  the 
date  just  mentioned. 

It  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  the  law  promulgated 
by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  was  P  alone  or  the  completed 
Pentateuch.  In  favor  of  the  former  view  is  its  harmony 
with  the  accepted  theory  with  reference  to  the  history  of 
D.  It  seems  natural  that  this  document,  like  the  other, 
should  have  become  a  part  of  the  growing  compilation 
only  after  having  been  solemnly  recognized  as  divinely 
authoritative.  Moreover,  there  seems  to  be  a  discrepancy 
between  the  law  of  Ex.  xxx.  1 1  ff.  and  the  rule  which, 
according  to  Neh.  x.  32,  was  adopted  by  the  restored 
community.  It  is  objected,  however,  that,  if  the  law  in 
question  had  been  P,  the  account  of  the  conquest  of 
Canaan  preserved  in  the  book  of  Joshua,  with  which  it 
originally  ended,  would  not  afterward  have  been  detached 
from  it,  as  it  has  been,  and  classed  with  the  less  sacred 
books  that  follow  it.f  Moreover,  some  of  the  require- 
ments of  Neh.  X.  28  ff.  betray  regard  for  J  or  D  rather 
than  for  P,  J  and  the  author  (or  authors)  of  the  Chronicles, 
of  which  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  originally 
parts,  throughout  takes  for  granted  the  identity  of  the 
law  of  Moses  with  the  Pentateuch.  Hence,  it  seems 
safest  to  conclude  that,  if  there  is  any  foundation  for 
Neh.  viii.  i  ff.,  P  had  been  incorporated  with  JED,  and 
the  book  of  Joshua  detached  from  the  resulting  Hexa- 

*  See  also  x.  34/33  (Lev.  xxiv.  5  ff. ;  Num.  xxviii.  f-X  35/34 
(Num.  iii.  5  ff.  ;  Lev.  vi.  12  f.),  36/35  (Lev.  xix.  23  f.),  38/37  (Num. 
XV.  20  f.  ;   xviii.  24),  39/38  (Num.  xviii.  25  ff.). 

t  See  Wcllhausen,  JJG,  136. 

%  See  Neh.  x.  31/30  (Ex.  xxxiv.  16;  Deu.  vii.  3),  32/31  (Ex. 
xxiii.  10  f. ;  Deu.  xv.  i  f.)  ;  note,  also  the  Deuteronomic  phrase- 
ology of  V.  30/29. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  63 

teuch,  before  458,  or,  at  the  latest,  444  ;  *  in  other  words, 
that  it  was  the  Pentateuch  in  its  fourfold  composition  to 
which  the  Jews  in  their  assembly  pledged  obedience,  the 
occasional  passages  betraying  a  later  date  being  interpo- 
lations by  more  or  less  competent  readers  or  copyists. 
Comp.  Oxford  Hex.  i.  138  ff.f 

The  conclusion  reached  with  respect  to  the  age  of  the 
Pentateuch,  then,  is,  that  J  originated  about  850,  and  IC 
about  8cx3  li.  c.  ;  that  the  two,  having  been  more  or  less 
revised  and  enlarged,  were  united  into  a  composite  docu- 
ment before  639  b.  c.  ;  that  D,  which  was  discovered 
in  621  B.  c,  but  must  have  been  written  some  time  be- 
fore and  revised  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  was  incorpo- 
rated with  JE  early  in  the  Captivity  ;  and  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  practically  completed  by  the  addition  of  P,  a 
product  of  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  b.  c,  before 
444,  if  not  before  458,  the  date  of  Ezra's  appearance  in 
Palestine.  J 

*  According  lo  Kosters  {HIPT),  who  removes  Neh.  vii.  6-viii. 
18  to  the  end  of  the  book,  the  promulgation  of  the  Law  did  not 
take  place  until  Nehemiah's  second  visit  to  Jerusalem  about  432 
B.  c.     Comp.  Torrey,  EN^  2  f.,  49  f. 

t  In  reply  to  the  objection  (Holzinger,  EH,  430  f.)  that,  if  the 
book  had  been  the  Pentateuch,  the  reader  would  not  have  reached 
Lev.  xxiii.  on  the  second  day  (Neh.  viii.  13  f.),  one  might  retort 
that,  if  it  had  been  P,  the  reading  of  it  would  not  have  required 
ten  days  (Neh.  ix.  3).  One  might  add  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
account  of  the  matter  to  make  it  necessary  to  insist  that  the  book 
in  question  was  read  in  course. 

X  It  has  sometimes  been  pronounced  "a  thing  incredible"  that 
the  Pentateuch  should  be  such  a  patchwork  as  the  documentary 
hypothesis  makes  it.  Fortunately  there  are  other  examples  of 
compilation,  one  of  which  is  quite  as  elaborate  as  this  is  sui>posed 
to  be.  It  is  the  "  Dialessaron,''  or  fourfold  (iosj)el.  of  Tatian, 
which  at  one  time  had  nearly  supplanted  the  oriL^inals  in  the  Syr- 
ian Church.     The  following  is  a  specimen  quoted   from  the  Arabic 


64  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

The  dates  given,  it  will  be  observed,  are  the  dates 
when  the  documents  as  such  are  believed  to  have  origi- 
nated, and  when  the  Pentateuch  as  a  compilation  reached 
the  various  stages  in  its  development.  They  do  not,  ex- 
cept in  the  cases  in  which  the  later  documents  can  be 
shown  to  reproduce  the  earlier,  indicate  the  age  of  the 
materials  of  which  the  documents  are  composed.  These 
materials,  in  the  case  of  J  and  E,  were  probably  to  some 
extent  derived  from  oral  tradition  ;  but  there  is  good 
evidence  that  the  authors  of  these  two  works,  as  well  as 
those  of  D  and  P,  had  written  sources  at  their  disposal. 
In  certain  instances  they  confess  their  indebtedness  to 

version  of  it  by  Professor  Moore  {JBL,  ix.  207  ff.).  The  three 
kinds  of  type  indicate  the  three  sources,  Mark,  Luke,  and  Matthew, 
from  which  it  was  compiled :  — 

"  And  the  same  day,  -when  even  was  come,  he  said  unto 
them,  Let  us  go  unto  the  other  side  of  the  lake.  And  when  they 
had  sent  away  the  multitude  [Jesus]  went  into  a  ship  with  his 
disciples ;  and  there  were  also  with  him  other  little  ships.  And 
behold  there  arose  a  great  tempest  in  the  sea,  and  the  ships  were 
near  being  swamped  by  the  waves ;  and  [Jesus]  was  in  the  stern 
asleep  on  a  pillow.  And  his  disciples  cajne  to  him  and  awoke 
him,  saying,  Master,  save  us,  we  perish  /  Then  he  arose  and  re- 
buked tlie  wind  and  the  raging  of  the  water,  and  said  unto  the 
sea.  Peace,  be  still !  and  the  wind  ceased,  and  there  w^as  a 
great  calm.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye  so  fearful  ? 
How^  is  it  that  ye  have  no  faith  ?  And  they  feared  exceed- 
ingly [and]  wondered,  saying  one  to  another.  What  manner  of  man 
is  this  .''  for  he  commandeth  even  the  winds  and  water,  and  they 
obey  him  "  (Mar.  iv.  35a  ;  Lu.  viii.  22b  ;  Mar.  iv.  36a  ;  Lu.  viii.  22a  ; 
Mar.  iv.  36b  ;  Mat.  viii,  24a  ;  Lu.  viii.  23b  ;  Mar.  iv.  38a  ;  Mat.  viii. 
25  ;  Lu.  viii.  24b;  Mar.  iv.  39b-4ia;  Lu.  viii.  25b). 

This  passage  consists  of  twelve  fragments,  only  two  of  which 
contain  a  whole  verse.  There  is  probably  in  the  Pentateuch  no 
passage  in  which  the  critics  would  claim  that  the  supposed  editor 
(or  editors)  treated  his  documents  with  greater  freedom.  For  other 
examples  of  compilation,  see  Oxford  Hex.  i.  4  ff. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  65 

such  sources.  Thus,  although  they  differ  on  the  form  of 
the  covenant  made  at  Sinai-Horeb,  they  agree  in  repre- 
senting it  as  a  written  document  the  contents  of  which 
they  reproduce.  They  both  also  quote  from  various  na- 
tional songs.  In  one  instance  (Num.  xxi.  14),  it  will  be 
remembered,  the  Klohist  names  the  source,  the  "  Book 
of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh,"  from  which  the  lines  quoted 
are  taken.  The  Yahwist  does  not  inform  the  reader 
where  he  found  the  poetical  extracts  in  the  earlier  parts 
of  his  narrative  ;  but  the  fact  that,  later  in  the  work,  he 
cites  the  "Book  of  Jasher  "  (Jos.  x.  13)  seems  to  war- 
rant one  in  supposing  that  the  earlier  quotations  are 
from  the  same  or  some  other  written  source.  The  words 
of  the  covenant,  according  to  J  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28),  were  put 
into  writing  by  Moses ;  so,  also,  according  to  E  (Ex. 
xxiv.  3),  the  judgments  revealed  to  the  lawgiver  at  Ho- 
reb.*  Now  it  is  not  possible  to  apply  these  statements 
to  the  covenant  and  the  judgments  in  the  form  in  which 
they  appear  in  Exodus  xxxiv.  10-26  and  xx.  22-xxiii.  33  ;  \ 
but,  since  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Moses  was  the 
actual  founder  of  the  Hebrew  church  and  commonwealth, 
it  is  safe  to  assume  that  he  gave  his  people  in  writing  the 
simpler  precepts  and  regulations  from  which  were  devel- 
oped, first  the  legislation  ascribed  to  him  in  J  and  E,  and 
finally  the  more  elaborate  codes  of  D  and  P.  He  may 
also,  as  Ex.  xvii.  14  has  been  supposed  to  teach  that  he 
did,  have  made  a  record  of  the  leading  incidents  of  the 

*  Deu.  xxvii.  8,  if  it  belongs  to  E  (Bacon),  also  refers  to  these 
judgments  and  implies  that  they  had  been  put  into  writing  by 
Moses. 

t  The  principal  reasons  for  this  statement  are,  that  these  pas- 
sages are  not  homogeneous  wholes,  and  that  they  contain  elements 
clearly  of  a  later  date  than  that  of  the  Exodus.  See  Driver,  /LOT, 
35  f.,  39  f. ;  Cornill,  EA  T,  66  ff. ;  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC,  337  ff. ;  Kit- 
tel,  ////,  i.  235  f. 


66  THE   WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

Exodus  ;  but  it  is  quite  as  probable  that  the  memory  of 
them  was  presented  in  popular  songs  like  that  of  Ex.  xv. 
and  those  collected  in  the  "Book  of  Jasher  "  and  the 
"  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh."  As  the  ideas  and  prin- 
ciples taught  by  Moses  were  developed,  it  was  natural 
that  the  resulting  codes,  one  after  another,  should  be 
called  by  his  name ;  and,  when  they  were  all  finally  in- 
corporated into  a  history  of  the  period  which  closed  with 
the  Exodus,  that  he  should  be  credited  with  writing  this 
great  work  as  well  as  performing  the  great  deeds  which 
it  especially  commemorates.* 

The  outcome,  then,  of  the  investigation  undertaken  is, 
that,  although  in  parts  of  the  Bible  the  Pentateuch  is  at- 
tributed to  Moses,  and  such  was  for  centuries  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Christian  as  well  as  the  Jewish  church,  the 
doctrine  is  based  upon  a  mistaken  tradition ;  the  truth 
being  that  this  so-called  "law  of  Moses"  is  a  composite 
work,  the  growth  of  the  entire  period  from  Moses  to 
Ezra.  This  conclusion,  being  based  upon  the  best  of 
evidence,  will  have  to  be  accepted,  however  it  may  affect 
the  authority  of  the  Pentateuch  or  the  renown  of  its  sup- 
posed author.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  ought  not  to  dimin- 
ish either.  In  the  church  of  S.  Pietro  in  Vincoli  at  Rome 
is  the  famous  statue  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver.  It  is  a 
magnificent  work  of  art,  and  at  first  one  is  glad  that  it  is 
placed  where  its  minutest  details  can  conveniently  be  ex- 
amined. Soon,  however,  the  spectator  with  some  artistic 
judgment  begins  to  be  disturbed  in  his  enjoyment.  There 
seems  to  be  something  wrong  about  the  masteqDiece.  Its 
grandeur  is  so  obtrusive  that  it  becomes  oppressive.  He 
turns  to  his  guidebook  and  there  finds  an  explanation  for 
the  effect  produced  upon  him.     The  statue,  it  appears, 

*  For  further  illustrations  of  the  process  here  described,  see 
W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC,  383  ff. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  67 

was  not  made  for  the  place  which  it  now  occupies,  but 
was  to  have  formed  part  of  a  colossal  monument  in  the 
largest  of  the  world's  cathedrals.  Suppose,  now,  that 
some  great  artist  should  carry  out  the  original  plan  of 
Michael  Angelo,  complete  the  memorial  to  Julius  II.,  and 
add  it  to  the  attractions  of  S.  Pietro  in  Vaticano.  Would 
any  one  with  any  taste  probably  object  to  such  a  consum- 
mation }  One  might  at  first  miss  the  sharpness  of  out- 
line which  now  forces  itself  upon  the  beholder,  and  feel 
a  little  confused  by  the  thirty  other  statues  belonging  to 
the  design  for  the  mausoleum  ;  but  the  genius  of  the 
greatest  of  modern  sculptors  is  a  guarantee  that  in  the 
end  both  the  artist  and  his  work  would  receive  increased 
admiration.  What  might  be  done  for  the  Moses  of  art 
the  biblical  scholars  of  the  last  half  century  have  done 
for  the  Moses  of  history.  They  have  deprived  him,  in- 
deed, of  the  lesser  honor  of  having  written  a  great  work 
at  the  dictation  of  the  Deity ;  but,  in  associating  with  him 
the  succession  of  writers  by  whom  the  Pentateuch  was 
actually  composed  and  compiled,  they  have  given  him 
the  preeminence,  as  the  inspired  founder  of  a  nation  and 
its  religion,  for  which  his  God  designed  him.  Moreover, 
those  whose  eyes  are  open  to  "behold  wondrous  things" 
out  of  the  Scriptures  say  of  the  process  now  revealed,  as 
devoutly  as  they  ever  did  of  the  one  by  which  they  for- 
merly believed  the  Pentateuch  to  have  been  produced, 

"  This  is  from  Yahvveh, 
And  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes." 


ANALYSIS   OF   GENESIS   I.-XI. 

The  Documentary  Hypothesis  is  based  on  known  facts 
with  reference  to  the  structure  and  content  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. It  ought,  therefore,  to  explain  them.  It  does 
explain  the  great  mass  of  them  to  most  of  those  compe- 
tent to  decide  in  such  matters,  and  this  is  the  reason  for 
its  prevalence  in  the  scholarly  world.  Its  most  ardent  ad- 
vocate, however,  would  hardly  claim  that  it  is  absolutely 
perfect.  He  would  doubtless  admit  that,  at  this  distance 
from  the  period  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  too 
much  to  expect  to  be  able  to  unravel  to  the  last  thread 
the  history  of  its  compilation,  and  that,  therefore,  one 
must  not  be  surprised  if  the  accepted  theory  is  not  appli- 
cable without  exceptions. 

The  limitations  confessed,  as  well  as  the  merits  of  the 
hypothesis,  are  fairly  illustrated  in  the  first  eleven  chap- 
ters of  Genesis.  The  composite  character  of  these  chap- 
ters has  been  established.  See  pp.  i6  ff.  The  separation 
of  the  Priestly  from  the  other  elements  therein  contained 
is  easy.  The  first  account  of  creation  (i.  i-ii.  3)  is  plainly 
of  this  character.  It  is  equally  clear  that  this  account 
was  originally  immediately  followed  by  chapter  v.  (except 
V.  29),  and  that  by  an  account  of  the  Flood  which  seems 
to  have  been  preserved  entire  in  vi.  9-22  ;  vii.  6,  11,  13- 
i6a,  18-21,  24;  viii.  i-2a,  3b-5,  13a,  14-19;  ix.  1-17, 
28  f.  The  fourth  chapter  of  this  work  is  found  distrib- 
uted through  the  tenth  of  the  canonical  Genesis  {vv.  la, 
2-4a,  5-7,  20,  22  f.,  31  f.) ;  the  fifth,  as  a  continuous 
whole,  in  xi.  10-26 ;  and  the  sixth,  or  a  part  of  it,  in  xi. 


ANALYSIS   OF  GENESIS  I. -XI.  69 

27  and  31  f.  These  passages,  when  read  continuously^ 
produce  the  impression  that  they  were  written,  substan- 
tially as  they  have  been  preserved,  for  one  another  and 
by  the  same  hand. 

When  they  have  been  removed,  there  remains  a  series 
of  Yahwistic  passages  the  discrepancies  among  which 
make  it  necessary  to  pronounce  them  the  product  of  two 
or  more  authors,  but  do  not  make  it  possible  in  every 
case  to  determine  by  which  of  the  supposed  authors  a 
given  passage  was  written.  It  is  pretty  generally  agreed 
that  the  following  passages  belong  to  J^  the  earliest 
stratum  of  the  Yahwistic  component  of  the  Pentateuch : 
iv.  i6b-24 ;  vi.  i  f.,  4  ;  ix.  20-27  ;  and  xi.  1-9.  There  is 
similar  unanimity  in  referring  the  story  of  the  Flood 
interwoven  with  that  of  the  Priestly  narrator  in  vi.  5-ix. 
19,  and  the  Yahwistic  table  of  nations  in  chapter  x.,  in 
their  original  form,  to  ]'^\  also  xi.  28-30.  There  remain 
two  extended  passages,  ii.  4b-iii.  24,  in  its  original  form, 
and  iv.  2-1 6a,  the  former  of  which  has  hitherto  generally 
been  attributed  to  J\  the  latter  to  a  third  author,  per- 
haps the  compiler  who  put  J^  and  J^  together.  This  is 
the  view  adopted  in  the  following  pages ;  but  Holzinger 
{Genesis,  xxv.),  e.g.,  treats  both  as  excerpts  from  J^,  while 
Kautzsch  {LOT,  226)  refers  them  to  J^.  The  discrepan- 
cies among  the  passages  which  Holzinger  assigns  to  J^ 
suggest  to  him  the  question,  —  which  must  have  oc- 
curred to  others,  and  certainly  deserves  consideration,  — 
"whether  it  would  not  be  more  correct  to  suppose  that 
the  main  stream  of  the  Yahwistic  history  of  primitive 
times  (J2)  has  not  been  enriched  by  the  incorporation  of 
other  (older)  legends  of  very  various  origin,  which  had 
never  previously  been  brought  into  organic  connection  " 
{Genesis,  122).  Stade  {ZA  IV,  1894,  275  ff.)  meets  the 
same  difficulty  by  supposing  the  Yahwistic  account  of  the 


70  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

Flood  to  have  been  incorporated  into  a  previous  compila- 
tion, consisting  of  J*  (ii.  4a-iii.  24*  and  xi.  1-9)  united 
with  J^  (iv.  25  f.,  17  ff.,  and  ix.  20  ff.  ;  perhaps  also  x.  9 
and  vi.  i  f.)  by  an  editor  who  also  inserted  the  story 
(already  long  current)  of  Kayin  and  Hebhel.*  It  will  be 
observed  that,  although  the  authors  cited  differ  in  their 
analysis  of  the  remains  of  the  Yahwistic  document  so- 
called,  they  agree  that  there  was  such  an  independent 
work,  and  that  it  was  a  compilation.  The  extent  and 
character  of  the  additions  made  by  its  compiler  and  the 
one  who  afterwards  incorporated  it  with  P,  also  later 
glossators,  may  be  learned  from  the  translation.  On  x. 
8-12,  see  the  comments. 

The  object  of  the  foregoing  analysis  was  to  discover 
the  sources  of  the  chapters  to  be  studied.  If,  now,  they 
be  examined  with  reference  to  their  content,  the  result 
will  be  more  satisfactory  ;  for,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
they  were  compiled  from  various  documents,  they  pos- 
sess a  certain  unity  and  unfold  in  accordance  with  an 
intelligible  plan.  This  plan  is  a  modification  of  that  of 
the  Priestly  document,  the  author  of  which  is  one  of 
the  most  logical  of  the  writers  whose  works  are  pre- 
served in  the  Old  Testament.  An  idea  of  the  skill  with 
which  the  compiler  managed  the  materials  at  his  dis- 
posal may  be  gathered,  in  advance  of  a  more  thorough 
study  of  the  chapters  themselves,  from  the  following 
table  of  topics  therein  treated  : 

I.    The  World  before  Abraham,  i,-xi. 

I.    The  Orio^in  of  Things,  i.-iii. 

a.    The  Work  of  God,  i.-ii. 

*  From  this  point  onward,  proper  names,  except  in  quotations 
from  other  autliors,  will  appear  in  forms  indicating  with  approxi- 
mating exactness  their  Hebrew  pronunciation.  For  a  key  to  the 
transliteration,  see  the  I'rcface. 


ANALYSIS  OF  GENESIS  I.^XI.  71 

(i)  The  First  Account,  i.  i-ii.  3. 

(a)  The  First  Day,  i.  1-5. 

(b)  The  Second  Day,  vv.  6-8. 

(c)  The  Third  Day,  vv.  9-13. 

(d)  The  Fourth  Day,  vv.  14-20. 

(e)  The  Fifth  Day,  vv.  21-23. 

(f)  The  Sixth  Day,  7/7/.  24-31. 

(g)  The  Seventh  Day,  ii.  1-3. 
(2)   The  Second  Account,  ii.  4-25. 

(a)  The  Formation  of  Man,  vv.  4-7. 

(b)  The  Garden  in  'Edhen,  vv.  8-17. 

(c)  The  Advent  of  Woman,  vv.  18-25. 
b.    The  Origin  of  Evil,  iii, 

(i)   The  First  Disobedience,  vv.  1-7. 

(2)  The  Consequences  of  Disobedience,  vv.  8-21. 

(3)  Expulsion  from  Paradise,  7/7/.  22-24. 

2.  Early  Growth  and  Corruption,  iv.  i-vi.  8. 

a.  The  Line  of  Kayin,  iv.  1-24. 
(i)   The  First  Murder,  vv.  1-16. 

(a)  A  Rejected  Offering,  vv.  r-7. 

(b)  The  Offerer's  Resentment,  vv.  8-16. 
(2)   The  Earliest  Civilization,  vv.  17-24. 

b.  The  Line  of  Sheth,  iv.  25-v.  32. 

(i)   A  Genealogical  Fragment,  iv.  25  f, 
(2)   The  Complete  Geneaolgy,  v. 

c.  The  Apostate  Sons  of  God,  vi.  1-8. 

3.  Noah  and  his  Times,  vi.  9-ix.  29. 

a.  The  Deluge,  vi.  9-ix.  17. 

(i)   The  Preparations  of  Noah,  vi.  9-vii.  5. 

(a)  The  First  Account,  vi.  9-22. 

(b)  The  Second  Account,  vii.  1-5. 

(2)  The  Water  of  the  Plood,  vii.  6-viii.  14. 

(a)  A  Destructive  Prevalence,  vii.  6-24. 

(b)  A  Gradual  Subsidence,  viii.  14. 

(3)  The  Future  of  the  Survivors,  viii.  15-ix.  17. 

(a)  Noah's  Offering,  viii.  15-22. 

(b)  The  Sacredness  of  Life,  ix.  1-7. 

(c)  God's  Bow,  vv.  8-17. 

b.  Noah's  Prophecy,  7'7A  18-29. 

4.  The  Origin  of  the  Peoples,  x.-xi. 


72 


THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM 

a.  The  Race  and  its  Divisions,  x.  i-xi.  9. 

(1)  A  Gradual  Dispersion,  x. 

(a)  The  Families  of  Yepheth,  vv.  1-5. 

(b)  The  Families  of  Ham,  vv.  6-20. 

(c)  The  Families  of  Shem,  vv.  21-32. 

(2)  The  Confusion  of  Tongues,  xi.  1-9. 

b.  The  Line  of  Shem,  xi.  10-26. 

c.  The  Family  of  Terah,  vv.  27-32. 


THE   WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM 

I.    Translation  * 

I,  a  (i)  (a)  '1  In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and 
earth.  ^  Now  the  earth  was  waste  and  void,  and  darkness 
was  on  the  face  of  the  deep  ;  but  the  spirit  of  God 
brooded  over  the  face  of  the  water.  ^Then  God  said, 
Let  there  be  Hght ;  and  there  was  hght ;  ^  and  God  saw 
that  the  Hght  was  good.  God  also  separated  the  light 
from  the  darkness  ;  and  God  called  the  light  Day,  while 
the  darkness  he  called  Night.  ^  So  it  became  evening, 
then  became  morning,  one  day. 

(b)  ^  Then  God  said.  Let  there  be  an  expanse  in  the 
middle  of  the  water,  that  it  may  make  a  division  in  the 
water ;  and  f  sof  it  f  was.f  '^Thus  God  made  the  expanse, 
and  it  if  separated  the  water  that  was  under  the  expanse 
from  the  water  that  was  above  the  expanse.  ^  God  also 
called  the  expanse  Heaven  :  [and  God  saw  that  it  was 
good].§  So  it  became  evening,  then  became  morning,  a 
second  day. 

(c)  ^  Then  God  said.  Let  the  water  under  heaven 
gather   itself  into  one    mass,||  that   dry  ground^    may 

*  The  sources  of  the  text  are  indicated  by  difference  of  type  :  the 
Roman  being  used  for  passages  from  P  and  additions  betraying  a 
similar  style  or  standpoint,  and  the  Antique  for  the  Yahwistic  ele- 
ments.    Omissions  supplied  are  enclosed  in  brackets. 

t  Gr. ;  the  Massoretic  text  has  this  clause  at  the  end  of  v.  7. 

X  Syr. ;  text,  God.  §  Gr. 

II  Gr. ;  text,  place.  \  Text,  the  dry  grou7id. 


74  THE   WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [I.  9-22 

appear  ;  and  so  it  was.  ^^  [Thus  the  water  under  heaven 
gathered  itself  together  into  its  mass,  and  dry  ground 
appeared].*  God  also  called  the  dry  ground  Land,  and 
the  mass  of  water  he  called  Sea :  and  God  saw  that  it 
was  good.  ^^  Moreover,  God  said.  Let  the  land  put  forth 
vegetation :  herb  yielding  seed  [after  its  kind,  and]f 
tree  J  bearing  fruit,  wherein  is  its  seed,  after  §  its§  kind§ 
on  the  earth  ;  and  so  it  was.  ^^Thus  the  land  put  forth  || 
vegetation  :  herb  yielding  seed  after  its  kind,  and  tree 
bearing  fruit,  whose  seed  is  in  itself,  after  its  kind ;  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good.  ^^  So  it  becam.e  evening,  then 
became  morning,  a  third  day. 

(d)  ^^  Then  God  said,  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment of  heaven  to  distinguish  between  day  and  night. 
Let  them  also  be  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
years  ;  ^^  and  let  them  be  lights  in  the  expanse  of  heaven, 
to  shed  light  upon  the  earth  :  and  so  it  was.  ^^  Thus  God 
made  the  two  great  lights  ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  day, 
and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  night ;  also  the  stars.  ^^  And 
God  placed  them  in  the  expanse  of  heaven,  to  shed  light 
upon  the  earth,  ^^  as  well  as  to  rule  over  day  and  over 
night,  and  to  distinguish  between  light  and  darkness; 
and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.  ^^  So  it  became  evening, 
then  became  morning,  a  fourth  day. 

(e)  20  Then  God  said,  Let  the  water  swarm  with  abun- 
dant living  creatures,  and  let  birds  fly  over  the  earth, 
across  the  expanse  of  heaven  ;  [and  so  it  was],^  21  Thus 
God  created  the  great  monsters,  and  all  the  living,  mov- 
ing creatures  with  which  the  water  swarms  after  their 
kinds,  and  every  winged  bird  after  its  kind  ;  and  God 
saw  that  it  was  good.     22  Qq^  ^jsq  blessed  them,  saying, 

*  Gr.  t  Gr.  %  'Yt^i,  fruit-tree. 

§  Gr. ;  the  Massoretic  text  inserts  tliis  clause  2iiiQX  fruit. 
U  Text,  caused  to  go  forth.  T]  Gr. 


I.  22-31]  TRANSLATION  75 

Increase  and  multiply,  that  ye  may  fill  the  water  in  the 
sea ;  and  let  the  birds  multiply  on  the  land.  2:5  j^q  \^  \^^._ 
came  evening,  then  became  morning,  a  fifth  day. 

(f)  24  Then  God  said.  Let  the  land  produce  living  crea- 
tures after  their  kinds  ;  cattle,  and  creeping  things,  and 
beasts  of  the  earth,  after  their  kinds  :  and  so  it  was. 
^Thus  God  made  the  beasts  of  the  earth  after  their  kind, 
and  the  cattle  after  their  kind,  and  all  the  creeping  things 
of  the  ground  after  their  kind  :  and  God  saw  that  it  was 
good.  26  Moreover,  God  said.  Let  us  make  men  in  our 
image  [and]  *  after  our  likeness,  that  they  may  exercise 
lordship  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  birds  of 
heaven,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  [the  beasts  of]  f 
the  earth,  and  over  all  the  creeping  things  that  creep  on 
the  earth.  27  Thus  God  created  men  in  his  own  image  ; 
in  the  image  of  God  created  he  them  :  male  and  female 
created  he  them.  ^8  Qod  also  blessed  them,  and  God  said 
to  them.  Increase  and  multiply,  that  ye  may  fill  the  earth 
and  subdue  it,  and  exercise  lordship  over  the  fish  of  the 
sea,  and  over  the  birds  of  heaven,  [and  over  the  cattle],  J 
and  over  all  the  beasts  [of  the  earth,  and  over  all  the 
creeping  things],  §  that  creep  on  the  earth.  "^  Qod.  said 
also,  Lo,  I  give  to  you  every  herb  yielding  seed  that  is 
on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  and  every  ||  tree  ||  in  which 
is  fruit  ^  yielding  seed  ;  yours  shall  it  be  for  food  :  ^^  and 
to  all  the  beasts  of  the  earth,  and  to  all  the  birds  of 
heaven,  and  to  all  [the  creeping  things]  **  creeping  on  the 
earth,  in  which  is  a  living  soul,  [give  I]  every  green  herb 
for  food ;  and  so  it  was.  ^^  And  when  God  beheld  all 
that  he  had  made,  lo,  it  was  very  good.  So  it  became 
evening,  then  became  morning,  a  f  f  sixth  day. 

*  Or.  Sam.  Vul.  f  Syr.  %  Or.  Syr.  §  Gr. 

II  Sam.;  iQx\.,  all  the  trees.  H  Gr. ;  tQxi,  fruit  0/ a  tree. 

**  Gr.  tt  Text,  the. 


76  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [II.  1-15 

(g)  "•  ^  Thus  heaven  and  earth  were  finished,  and  all 
their  host.  ^  When  therefore  God,  on  the  seventh  day, 
had  put  an  end  to  the  work  that  he  had  done,  he  rested 
on  the  seventh  day  from  all  the  work  that  he  had  done. 
3  God  also  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  hallowed  it,  be- 
cause on  it  he  rested  from  all  the  creative  work  that  he, 
God,  had  done. 

(2)  (a)  ■*  These  are  the  generations  of  heaven  and  earth, 
when  they  were  created.  At  the  time  when  Yahweh 
God  made  earth  and  heaven,  ^  no  shrub  of  the  field 
was  yet  in  the  earth,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  had 
yet  sprung  up ;  for  Yahweh  God  had  not  caused  it 
to  rain  upon  the  earth,  and  there  were  no  men  to 
till  the  ground.  ^But  a  mist  rose  from  the  earth, 
and  watered  the  whole  face  of  the  ground.  '  Yah- 
weh God  also  formed  man  of  dust  from  the  ground, 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life. 
Thus  man  became  a  living  creature. 

(b)  ^  Then  Yahw^eh  God  planted  a  garden  in  'Edhen, 
eastward,  and  placed  there  the  man  that  he  had 
formed.  ''Yahweh  God  also  caused  to  spring  from 
the  ground  every  tree  pleasant  to  sight  and  good  for 
food ;  also  the  tree  of  life  in  the  middle  of  the  garden 
and  the  tree  of  know^ledge  of  good  and  evil.     ^^Now 

there  went  forth  from  'Edhen  a  river  watering  the  garden  ;  and 
thence  it  branched  and  became  four  sources.  ^^  The  name  of 
the  first  is  Pishon.  It  is  the  one  that  boundeth  the  whole  land 
of  Haw^ilah,  where  there  is  gold,  i- Moreover,  the  gold  of  that 
land  is  [very]  *  good.  There  is  bdellium  and  the  onyx.  ^^  And 
the  name  of  the  second  river  is  Gihon.  It  is  the  one  that 
boundeth  the  whole  land  of  Kush.  '^  And  the  name  of  the 
third  river  is  Hiddekel.  It  is  the  one  that  floweth  east  of 
'Asshur.     And  the  fourth  river  is  the  Perath.     '^  Yahweh  God 

*  Sam. 


II.  I5-III.  1]  TRAXSLATION  jj 

also  took  the  man  and  placed  him  in  the  garden  of  'Edhen, 

to  till  and  guard  it.  ^''  Moreover,  Yahweh  God  charged 
the  man,  saying,  From  all  the  trees  of  the  garden 
thou  mayst  eat,  ^'*  except  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil:  from  it  thou  shalt  not  eat;  for  in  the  day 
thou  eatest  from  it  thou  shalt  surely  die. 

(c)  i^Then  said  Yahweh  God,  It  is  not  good  for 
the  man  to  be  alone ;  I  will  make  him  a  helper  suited 
to  him.  ^''  Thereupon  Yahweh  God  |  further]  *  formed 
from  the  ground  [all  the  cattle,  and]  all  the  beasts 
of  the  field,  and  all  the  birds  of  heaven,  and  brought 
them  to  the  man  to  see  w^hat  he  -would  call  them ; 
and  "whatsoever  the  man  called  each  living  creature, 
that  was  its  name.  -"  Thus  the  man  gave  names  to 
all  the  cattle,  and  [all]  f  the  birds  of  heaven,  and  all 
the  beasts  of  the  field ;  but  for  himself  the  %  J^^n  % 
found  not  a  helper  suited  to  him.  -^  Then  Yahweh 
God  let  fall  upon  the  man  a  stupor,  and  he  fell  asleep ; 
■whereupon  he  took  one  of  his  ribs,  closing  up  its 
place  w^ith  flesh.  -^  And  Yahw^eh  God  fashioned  the 
rib  that  he  had  taken  from  the  man  into  a  w^oman, 
and  brought  her  to  the  man.  -^^  Then  said  the  man, 
This,  now^,  is  one  of  my  bones  and  a  part  of  my  flesh ; 
she  shall  be  called  Woman,  because  from  [her]  § 
man  she  was  taken.  -^  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave 
his  father  and  his  mother  and  cleave  to  his  wife,  and 
the  [t"wo]  II  become  one  flesh.  -■'  And  they  w^ere  both 
naked,  the  man  and  his  w^ife,  yet  they  felt  no  shame. 

b  (i)  '''^Now  the  serpent  was  most  cunning  of 
all  the  beasts  of  the  field  that  Yahweh  God  had 
made.    [The  serpent]  ^  therefore  said  to  the  "woman, 

*  Gr.  Sam.  f  Gr.  Syr.  Vul. 

X  Gr. ;  text,  a  man  or  ^Adham.         §  Gr.  Sam. 
II  Gr.  Syr.  Vul.  H  Gr.  Syr. 


78  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [III.  1-14 

Hath  God,  then,  said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  from  any  tree 
of  the  garden?  -But  the  -woman  said.  From  the 
fruit  of  [all]  *  the  trees  of  the  garden  "we  may  eat, 
^  except  that  of  the  fruit  of  this  f  tree  that  is  in  the 
middle  of  the  garden  God  hath  said,  Ye  shall  not 
eat  from  it,  nor  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  ^  Then 
said  the  serpent  to  the  woman,  Ye  will  not  surely 
die ;  ^  for  God  knoweth  that,  in  the  day  ye  eat  from 
it,  your  eyes  will  be  opened  and  ye  will  be  like  God, 
knowing  good  and  evil.  ^Now  when  the  woman 
saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food  and  a  delight 
to  the  eyes,  also  that  the  tree  was  desirable  to  make 
one  wise,  she  took  from  its  fruit  and  ate :  she  gave 
also  to  her  husband  with  her,  and  he  ate.  '  There- 
upon the  eyes  of  both  of  them  -were  opened,  and 
they  knew  that  they  were  naked ;  so  they  sewed  to- 
gether fig  leaves  and  made  themselves  aprons. 

(2)  ^  But  when  they  heard  Yahweh  God  walking 
in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day,  the  man  and 
his  wife  hid  themselves  from  the  face  of  Yahweh 
God  among  the  trees  of  the  garden.  ^  Yahweh  God 
therefore  called  the  man,  saying  to  him.  Where  art 
thou  ?  ^^  and  he  said,  I  heard  thee  in  the  garden  and 
I  became  afraid,  because  I  w^as  naked,  and  hid  my- 
self. ^1  But  he  said,  Who  told  thee  thou  wast  naked  ? 
Hast  thou  eaten  from  the  tree  from  which  I  com- 
manded thee  not  to  eat  ?  ^^  And  the  man  said.  The 
■woman  thou  placedst  w^ith  me,  she  gave  me  from 
the  tree,  and  I  ate.  ^^  Thereupon  Yahweh  God  said 
to  the  woman.  What  is  this  that  thou  hast  done  ? 
And  the  -woman  said,  The  serpent  beguiled  me,  and 
I  ate.  ^*  Then  said  Yah-weh  God  to  the  serpent,  Be- 
cause thou  hast  done  this,  cursed  shalt  thou  be  above 
*  Gr.  Syr.  \  Sam.  ;  text,  the. 


1 1 1.  14-24]  TRANSLA  TION  79 

all  the  cattle  and  all  the  other  beasts  of  the  field.  On 
thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat,  all 
the  days  of  thy  life.  ^ '  I  will  also  set  enmity  between 
thee  and  the  w^oman,  and  between  thy  offspring  and 
her  offspring;  they  shall  bruise  thee  in  the  head, 
and  thou  shalt  -wound  them  in  the  heel,  i''  To  the 
"woman  [also]  *  he  said,  I  w^ill  send  thee  labor  very 
sore,  even  thy  pregnancy ;  "with  labor  shalt  thou  bear  chil- 
dren. Moreover,  to"ward  thy  husband  shall  be  thy 
longing,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee.  ^'  But  to  the  f 
manf  he  said,  Because  thou  hast  listened  to  the 
voice  of  thy  "wife,  and  eaten  from  the  tree  concerning 
which  I  commanded  thee,  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  eat 
from  it,  cursed  shall  be  the  ground  on  thy  account ; 
"With  labor  shalt  thou  eat  from  it  all  the  days  of  thy 
life.  1^  Thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  put  forth  for 
thee,  and  thou  shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field.  ^''  In 
the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread  until  thou 

return  to  the   ground  — for  from  it  thou  wast  taken;   for 

dust  thou  art  and  to  dust  thou  shalt  return,     ^o  ^^d 

the  man  called  the  name  of  his  wife  Haw^w^ah,  because  she 
was  the  mother  of  every  one  living.      ^^  But   Yah"weh   God 

made  for  the  %  man  :|:  and  his  wife  tunics  of  skin  and 
clothed  them. 

(3)  ^Then  said  Yahweh  God,  Lo,  the  man  has  become  as 
one  of  us,  knowing  good  and  evil ;  and  now,  lest  he  stretch 
forth  his  hand  and  take  also  from  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and 

live  forever,  —  '^'>  then  Yah"weh  God  sent  him  from  the 
garden  of  'Edhen,  to  till  the  ground  -whence  he  "was 

taken.  ^  And  w^hen  he  had  driven  the  man  forth,  he  sta- 
tioned eastward  of  the  garden  of  'Edhen  cherubs  and  a  gleam- 
ing, whirling  sword,  to  guard  the  way  to  the  tree  of  life. 

*  Gr.  Sam.  f  Gr. ;  text,  ^Adham.  |  Gr. ;  text,  'Ad/iam. 


So  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM     [IV.  1-15 

2,  a,  (i)  (a)  '^  ^Then  the  man  knew  Hawwah  his 
wife,  and  she  conceived  and  bore  Kayin.  And  she 
said,  I  have  gained  a  man  with  Yahweh.     -  Again, 

she  bore  his  brother  Hebhel ;  and  Hebhel  became  a  keeper  of 

sheep,  but   Kayiii   became   a   tiller   of   the   ground. 

3  Thus  it  came  to  pass  after  a  time,  that  Kayin  brought  from 
the  produce  of  the  ground  an  offering  to  Yahweh;  -» while 
Hebhel  brought  from  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  even  from  their 
fat.  And  Yahweh  had  regard  to  Hebhel  and  his  offering ;  ^  but 
to  Kayin  and  his  offering  he  had  not  regard.  Thereupon  was 
Kayin  very  angry  and  downcast.  "But  Yahweh  said  to 
Kayin,  Why  art  thou  angry?  and  why  art  thou  downcast? 
'If  thou  doest  well,  is  there  not  acceptance?  and,  if  thou 
doest  not  well,  doth  not  sin  lie  at  the  door?  Yet  toward  thee 
shall  be  its  longing,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  it. 

(b)  ^  Then  Kayin  said  to  Hebhel,  [Let  us  go  to  the  field] ;  * 
and  it  came  to  pass  that,  when  they  were  in  the  field,  Kayin 
assailed  Hebhel  his  brother  and  killed  him.  '-*  But  Yahweh 
said  to  Kayin,  Where  is  Hebhel  thy  brother?  And  he  said, 
I  know  not.  Am  I  my  brother's  keeper?  ^<^Then  he  said. 
What  hast  thou  done?  The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood 
crieth  to  me  from  the  ground.  "  Now,  therefore,  cursed  shalt 
thou  be  from  the  ground,  that  hath  opened  its  mouth  to  re- 
ceive thy  brother's  blood  from  thy  hand.  12  "W"hen  thou  till- 
est  the  ground,  it  shall  no  longer  yield  thee  its  wealth.  A 
wanderer  and  a  fugitive  shalt  thou  be  in  the  earth.  ^^But 
Kayin  said  to  Yahweh,  My  punishment  is  greater  than  I  can 
bear.  ^^Lo,  thou  hast  this  day  banished  me  from  the  face  of 
the  ground,  and  from  thy  face  I  must  hide  myself,  becoming  a 
wanderer  and  a  fugitive  in  the  earth ;  so  that  it  will  come  to 
pass,  that  whosoever  meeteth  me  will  kill  me.  ^*  And  Yah- 
-w^eh  said  to  him,  Therefore  if  any  one  kill  Kayin,  he  shall  be 
avenged  sevenfold.     So  Yahweh  appointed  a  sign  for  Kayin, 

♦  Gr.  Sam.  Syr. 


IV.  15-26]  TRANSLATION  ^t 

that  whosoever  met  him  should  xot  kill  him.     ^'■' And  Kayin 
went  forth  from  the  presence  of  YaiAveh  and  d^velt  in  the 

land  of  Nodh,  eastward  of  'Edhei. 

(2)  1'  Then  Kayin  knew  his  wife,  aiui  she  conceived 
and  bore  Hanokh.  He  •  was  *  the  buxMer  of  a  city, 
which  he  called,  after  his  sons  name,  Hanokh. 
^^  There  was  born  to  Hanokh  also  'Iradh ;  and  'Iradh 
begot  Mehiyya'el ;  f  and  Mehiyya'el  begot  Methu- 
sha'el;  and  Methusha'el  begot  Lemekh.  ^'^Now 
Lemekh  took  to  himself  two  wives :  the  name  of  the 
one  was  'Adhah,  and  the  name  of  the  second  Sillah. 
2"^' And  'Adhah  bore  Yabhal:  he  was  the  father  of 
[every]  one  that  dwelleth  in  tents  with  cattle.  21  And 
the  name  of  his  brother  w^as  Yubhal:  he  -was  the 
father  of  every  one  that  handleth  the  lyre  and  the 
pipe.  -  Sillah,  also,  bore  Tubhal  Kayin :  he  %  was  % 
the  X  father  if  of  J  every  one  that  w^orketh  copper. 
And  the  sister  of  Tubhal  Kayin  was  Na'amah.  -^  And 
Lemekh  said  to  his  w^ives : 

'Adhah  and  Sillah,  hear  my  voice : 

Wives  of  Lemekh,  give  ear  to  my  speech : 

For  a  man  I  slay,  if  I  am  "wounded. 

And  a  boy  for  a  wale  given  me. 

-^  If  Kayin  was  avenged  sevenfold, 

Then  shall  Lemekh  be  seventy  and  seven  times. 

b  (l)  -'^Then  the  §  man  §  knew  his  wife  again,  [and 
she  conceived]  ||  and  bore  a  son,  and  she  called  his 
name  Sheth.  saying,  God  hath  sent  me  other  offspring 
instead  of  Hebhel,  since  Kayin  hath  killed  him.  '-^^  To  Sheth, 
also,  was  born  a  son,  and  he  called  his  name  'Enosh. 
He  ^  was  ^  the  ^  first  \  to  call  on  the  name  of  Yah- 
weh. 

*  Ttxt,  and  (he)  was.  f  Sam.;  text,  Mehiyya'el. 

X  Text,  hammerer.  §  Text,  ^Adham. 

I!   Gr.  Syr.  ^  Vul. ;  text,  the?i  was  begun. 


82  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [V.  1-19 

(2)  ^iThis  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of  'Adham. 
At  the  time  when  God  created  men,  in  the  likeness  of 
God  made  he  theni.  "^M^Xq  and  female  created  he  them. 
He  also  blessed^them,  and  called  their  name  Man,  at  the 
time  of  their  creation.  ^And  when  'Adham  had  lived  a 
hundred  '^ad  thirty  years,  he  begot  a  child  in  his  own 
likeness  [and]  *  after  his  own  image  and  called  his  name 
Sheth.  4  An(^  'Adham  f  lived  f  after  begetting  Sheth 
eignt  hundred  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters. 
y^Thus  all  the  days  that  'Adham  lived  were  nine  hundred 
and  thirty  years  ;  then  he  died. 

^  And  when  Sheth  had  lived  a  hundred  and  five  years, 
he  begot  'Enosh.  "'  And  Sheth  lived  after  begetting 
'Enosh  eight  hundred  and  seven  years,  and  begot  sons 
and  daughters.  ®  Thus  all  the  days  of  Sheth  were  nine 
hundred  and  twelve  years  ;  then  he  died. 

^And  when  'Enosh  had  lived  ninety  years,  he  begot 
Kenan.  ^^  And  'Enosh  lived  after  begetting  Kenan  eight 
hundred  and  fifteen  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters. 
^^  Thus  all  the  days  of  'Enosh  were  nine  hundred  and  five 
years  ;  then  he  died. 

^  And  when  Kenan  had  lived  seventy  years,  he  begot 
Mahalal'el.  ^^  And  Kenan  lived  after  begetting  Maha- 
lal'el  eight  hundred  and  forty  years,  and  begot  sons  and 
daughters.  ^^  Thus  all  the  days  of  Kenan  were  nine 
hundred  and  ten  years ;  then  he  died. 

^•'"'And  when  Mahalal'el  had  lived  sixty-five  years,  he 
begot  Yeredh.  ^^And  Mahalal'el  lived  after  begetting 
Yeredh  eight  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  begot  sons 
and  daughters.  ^^Thus  all  the  days  of  Mahalal'el  were 
eight  hundred  and  ninety-five  years  ;  then  he  died. 

^^  And  when  Yeredh  had  lived  a  hundred  sixty-two 
years,  he  begot  Hanokh.  ^^And  Yeredh  lived  after  be- 
*  Gr.  f  Ar. ;  text,  the  days  of  'Adham  were. 


V.I  9- VI.  4]  TRANSLATION  83 

getting  Hanokh  eight  hundred  years,  and  begat  sons  and 
daughters.  ^Thus  all  the  days  of  Yeredh  were  nine 
hundred  and  sixty-two  years  ;  then  he  died. 

2^  And  when  Hanokh  had  lived  sixty-five  years,  he  be- 
got IMethushelah.  -■^And  Hanokh  walked  with  God  after 
begetting  Methushelah  three  hundred  years,  and  begot 
sons  and  daughters.  '-"Thus  all  the  days  of  Hanokh 
were  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  years.  '^^  But  Hanokh 
walked  with  God,  and  was  not,  for  God  had  taken  him. 

2^ And  when  Methushelah  had  lived  a  hundred  and 
eighty-seven  years,  he  begot  Lemekh.  "^  KnA  Methu- 
shelah lived  after  begetting  Lemekh  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-two  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters.  2''  Thus 
all  the  days  of  Methushelah  were  nine  hundred  and  sixty- 
nine  years  ;  then  he  died. 

^^And  when  Lemekh  had  lived  a  hundred  and  eighty- 
two  years  he  begat  a  son.  -'And  he  called  his  name 
Noah,  saying,  He  will  ease  us  of  our  work  and  the  toil 
of  our  hands  from  the  ground,  which  Yahweh  hath 
cursed.  ^^  And  Lemekh  lived  after  begetting  Noah  five 
hundred  and  ninety-five  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daugh- 
ters. ^^  Thus  all  the  days  of  Lemekh  were  seven  hundred 
and  seventy-seven  years  ;  then  he  died. 

^  And  when  Noah  had  become  five  hundred  years  old, 
Noah  begot  Shem,  Ham,  and  Yepheth. 

c  '''  1  NoTv  it  came  to  pass,  when  men  had  begun 
to  multiply  on  the  face  of  the  ground,  and  daughters 
had  been  born  to  them,  -that  the  sons  of  God  sa-w 
that  the  daughters  of  men  were  fair,  and  they  took 
to  themselves   as  -wives  v^homsoever  they  chose. 

^  And  Yah^weh  said,  My  spirit  shall  not  abide  in  men  forever, 

since  they  also  are  flesh ;  but  their  days  shall  be  a  hundred 

and  twenty  years.     '*  [Now^]  *  the  giants  w^ere  in   the 

*  Gr.  Sam.  Syr. 


84  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VI.  4-16 

earth  in  those  days,  and  also  afterwards,  "when  the 
sons  of  God  came  to  the  daughters  of  men,  and 
these  bore  them  children.  They  are  the  heroes  that 
of  old  -were  the  men  of  renoTvn.  ''  Now  when  Yah- 
weh  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  men  was  great  in  the 
earth,  and  that  every  design  of  the  thoughts  of  their 
hearts  was  only  and  always  evil,  ^  then  was  Yahweh 
sorry  that  he  had  made  men  in  the  earth,  yea  he  was 
grieved  to  his  heart.  ''  Therefore  Yahweh  said,  I  will 
wipe  men  whom  I  have  created  off  the  face  of  the  ground, 
—  not  only  men,  but  cattle,  and  creeping  things,  and  the  birds  of 
heaven,  — for  I  am  sorry  that  I  made  them.  ^But  Noah 
found  favor  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh. 

3,  a  (i)  (a)  ^  These  are  the  generations  of  Noah.  Noah 
was  a  just,  a  perfect  man  among  his  fellows :  Noah 
walked  with  God.  ^^And  Noah  begot  three  sons,  Shem, 
Ham,  and  Yepheth.  ^^  But  the  earth  became  corrupt 
before  God ;  yea,  the  earth  became  full  of  violence. 
^2  And  when  God  saw  that  lo,  the  earth  was  corrupt, 
because  all  flesh  had  perverted  its  way  on  the  earth, 
^  God  said  to  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  hath  come 
before  me,  for  the  earth  is  filled  with  violence  on  ac- 
count of  them  ;  therefore  lo,  I  will  destroy  them  and  * 
the  earth.  ^^  Make  thyself  an  ark  of  cypress  wood.  In 
cells  shalt  thou  make  the  ark,  and  thou  shalt  smear  it 
within  and  without  with  bitumen.  ^^And  this  is  how 
thou  shalt  make  it  :  Three  hundred  cubits  shall  be  the 
length  of  the  ark ;  [and]  f  fifty  cubits  its  width  ;  and 
thirty  cubits  its  height.  ^^  Light  shalt  thou  provide  for 
the  ark,  finishing  it  within  a  cubit  of  the  top ;  and  the 
door  of  the  ark  shalt  thou  place  in  the  side  of  it.  "With 
a  lower,  a  second,  and  a  third  story  shalt  thou  make  it. 
*  Gr. ;  text,  with.  \  Gr.  Sam.  Syr. 


VI.  I7-VII.  7]  TRANSLATION  85 

^'  For  lo,  I  will  bring  the  Flood  water  upon  the  earth,  de- 
stroying all  flesh  in  which  is  a  living  spirit  under  heaven  ; 
all  that  is  in  the  earth  shall  perish.  ^^  But  I  will  establish 
my  covenant  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  go  into  the  ark, 
thou,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  wife,  and  the  wives  of  tliy 
sons,  with  thee.  ^^  Also  of  all  *  the  *  beasts,*  of  all  flesh, 
two  of  each  shalt  thou  bring  into  the  ark,  to  keep  them 
alive  with  thee  ;  a  male  and  a  female  shall  they  be.  ^o  Qf 
the  birds  after  their  kinds,  and  of  the  cattle  after  their 
kinds,  [and]  f  of  all  the  creeping  things  of  the  ground 
after  their  kinds,  two  of  each  shall  come  to  thee  to  be 
kept  alive,  ^i  Dq  thou  also  take  of  every  food  that  is 
eaten  and  gather  it  to  thee,  that  it  may  be  for  thee  and 
for  them  to  eat,  ^2^^^^^^^  Noah  did  so ;  just  as  God  com- 
manded him,  so  he  did. 

(b)  ^''^  Then  Yahweh  said  to  Noah,  Come  thou,  and 
all  thy  house,  into  the  ark  ;  for  thee  have  I  found 
righteous  before  me  in  this  generation.  ^  of  all  the 
clean  cattle  thou  shalt  take  to  thee  by  sevens,  a  male 
and  his  mate,  but  of  the  cattle  that  are  not  clean  by  \ 
twos,  J  a  male  and  his  mate  ;  ^  also  of  the  [clean]  §  birds 
of  heaven  by  sevens,  a  male  and  a  female,  [and  of  all  the 
birds  that  are  not  clean  by  twos,  a  male  and  a  female,] || 
to  keep  alive  seed  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth. 
^  For  in  yet  seven  days  I  will  bring  upon  the  earth  a 
rain  of  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  and  I  will  wipe 
all  the  beings  that  I  have  made  off  the  face  of  the 
ground.  ^  And  Noah  did  just  as  Yahweh  had  com- 
manded him. 

(2)  (a)  ^  Now  Noah  was  six  hundred  years  old  when 
the  Flood  happened  water  on  the  earth.  "  And  Noah, 
and  his  sons,  and  his  wife,  and  the  wives  of  his  sons  with  him, 

*  Gr.  Sam.;  text,  every  thing  that  liveth.  f  Gr.  Sam.  Syr. 

X  Gr.  Sam.  Syr.  §  Gr.  Sam.  Syr.  ||  Gr. 


S6  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VII.  7-21 

went  into  the  ark  on  account  of  the  water  of  the 
Flood.  ^  Of  the  clean  cattle,  and  of  the  cattle  that  are  not  clean, 
and  of  the  birds,  and  [of]  *  all  that  creep  on  the  ground,  ^  there 
came  by  twos  to  Noah  into  the  ark  a  male  and  a  female,  as  Yah- 
weh  f  had  commanded  Noah.  ^^  And  it  came  to  pass, 
that  in  the  seven  days  the  water  of  the  Flood  was  on 
the  earth.  ^^  In  the  six  hundredth  year  of  the  life  of 
Noah,  in  the  second  month,  on  the  seventeenth  day  of 
the  month, — on  that  day  all  the  sluices  of  the  great 
deep  were  rent  open  and  the  windows  of  heaven  undone  ; 
^2  and  the  rain  was  on  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty 
nights.  ^^On  that  very  day  went  Noah,  and  Shem,  and| 
Ham,  and  Yepheth,  the  sons  of  Noah,  and  the  wife  of 
Noah,  and  the  three  wives  of  his  sons  with  him  §  into  the 
ark ;  ^'^  they,  and  all  the  beasts  after  their  kinds,  and  all 
the  cattle  after  their  kinds,  and  all  the  creeping  things 
that  creep  on  the  earth  after  their  kinds,  and  all  the 
birds  after  their  kinds,  every  bird  of  every  feather. 
^^  Moreover,  they  came  to  Noah  into  the  ark  by  twos  of 
all  the  II  flesh  in  which  was  a  living  spirit ;  ^^and  they  that 
came  came  a  male  and  a  female  of  all  flesh,  as  God  had 
commanded  him.  Then  Yahweh  shut  him  in.  ^^  Now 
when  the  Flood  had  been  forty  days  on  the  earth,  the  water 
increased  and  lifted  the  ark,  and  it  rose  off  the  earth. 
^^  And  the  water  prevailed  and  increased  greatly  on  the 
earth,  and  the  ark  moved  on  the  face  of  the  water. 
19  Yea,  the  water  prevailed  very  greatly  on  the  earth,  so 
that  all  the  high  mountains  that  are  under  all  heaven 
were  covered.  ^  Fifteen  cubits  upward  did  the  water 
prevail,  and  the  mountains  were  covered,  ^i^hus  all 
flesh  that  moved  on  the  earth  perished,  even  birds,  and 
cattle  and  beasts,  and  all  the  swarm  that  swarmed  on  the 

♦  Gr.  Sam.  Syr.         +  Sam.  Vul.  Onk. ;  text,  God. 

X  Sam.  omits.  §  Gr.  Syr. ;  text, //i£//i.  \\  Sam.  omits. 


VII.  2I-VIII.  II]  TRANSLATION  87 

earth,  and  all  mankind.  22  Everything  in  whose  nos- 
trils was  the  breath  of  the*  spirit*  of  *  life,  of  all  that 
was  on  the  dry  land,  died.  ^'^  Thus  Yahweh  f  wiped 
out  all  the  beings  that  were  on  the  face  of  the  ground, 
not  only  men,  but  cattle,  and  creeping  things,  and  birds  of  heaven  ; 
yea,  they  were  wiped  off  the  earth,  and  there  were  left  only 
Noah  and  those  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark.  ^^  And 
the  water  prevailed  on  the  earth  a  hundred  and  fifty  days. 
(b)  ^i"-^Biit  God  remembered  Noah,  and  all  the  beasts, 
and  all  the  cattle  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark  ;  and  God 
caused  a  wind  to  pass  over  the  earth,  and  the  water  fell. 
2  Moreover,  the  sluices  of  the  deep  and  the  windows  of 
heaven  were  closed.  Then  the  rain  from  heaven 
ceased,  ^and  the  water  continually  withdrew  from 
the  earth.  Thus  the  water  decreased  from  the  end  of  a 
hundred  and  fifty  days;  ^and  in  the  seventh  month,  on 
the  seventeenth  day  of  the  month,  the  ark  grounded  on 
the  mountains  of  'Ararat.  ^But  the  water  continued  to 
decrease  until  the  tenth  month  ;  in  the  tenth  month,  on 
the  first  of  the  month,  the  tops  of  the  mountains  ap- 
peared. ^Now  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  forty 
days,  that  Noah  opened  the  window  of  the  ark,  that 
he  had  made,"  and  sent  forth  a  raven;  -which  went  to  and 
fro  continually  until  the  -water  dried  off  the  earth.  ^  Then  he 
sent  forth  from  him  a  dove,  to  see  whether  the  water 
had  subsided  off  the  face  of  the  ground.  ^But  the 
dove  found  no  resting-place  for  the  sole  of  its  foot : 
therefore  it  returned, —  for  there  was  water  on  the 
face  of  the  whole  earth,  —  and  he  stretched  forth  his 
hand,  and  took  it,  and  brought  it  to  him  into  the  ark. 
^^  Then  he  waited  yet  seven  days  more,  and  again  sent 
a  dove  forth  from  the  ark  ;  ^^  and  the  dove  came  to 
him  at  eventide,  and  lo,  there  was  a  fresh  olive  leaf  in 
*  Gr.  omits.  \  Text,  Jie. 


S8        THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VIII.  11-22 

its  mouth.  Then  Noah  knew  that  the  water  had  sub- 
sided off  the  earth.  ^-  But  he  waited  yet  seven  days 
more  and  sent  forth  a  dove  that  did  not  return  to 
him  again.  ^^^Thus  it  came  to  pass,  that  in  the  six  hun- 
dred and  first  year  [of  the  life  of  Noah],*  in  the  first 
month,  on  the  first  day  of  the  month,  the  water  had  dried 
off  the  earth.  Then  Noah  removed  the  covering  of 
the  ark,  and  looked,  and  lo,  the  face  of  the  ground 
was  dry.  ^^  Even  in  the  second  month,  on  the  twenty- 
seventh  day  of  the  month,  was  the  earth  dry. 

(3)  (a)  ^^  Then  God  spake  to  Noah,  saying,  ^^  Go  forth 
from  the  ark,  thou,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  sons,  and  the 
wives  of  thy  sons  with  thee.  ^'  All  the  beasts,  [also],f 
that  are  with  thee,  of  all  flesh,  even  the  birds,  and  the 
cattle,  and  all  the  creeping  things  that  creep  on  the  earth, 
bring  forth  with  thee,  that  they  may  swarm  in  the  earth, 
and  increase  and  multiply  on  the  earth.  ^^  So  Noah  went 
forth,  and  his  sons,  and  his  wife,  and  the  wives  of  his 
sons  with  him.  ^^  [Also]  \  all  the  beasts,  and  all  the  birds, 
and  §  all  §  the  §  creeping  §  things  §  that  §  creep  §  on  the 
earth,  after  their  families,  went  forth  from  the  ark. 
20  Then  Noah  built  an  altar  to  Yahweh,  and,  taking 
of  all  the  clean  cattle  and  all  the  clean  birds,  he  offered 
burnt  offerings  on  the  altar.  '-^^  And  when  Yahweh 
smelled  the  pleasant  odor,  Yahweh  said  to  himself, 
I  will  not  again  curse  the  ground  on  men's  account, 
because  the  design  of  the  hearts  of  men  is  evil  from 
their  youth ;  nor  will  I  again  smite  everything  that 
liveth,  as  I  have  done.  22  "^hile  the  earth  endureth, 
seedtime  and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer 
and  winter,  and  day  and  night  shall  not  cease. 

*Gr.  I  Cir.  Sam.  Syr.  J  Gr.  Sam.  Syr. 

§  Sam, ;  text,  all  the  crcepini^  things^  after  beasts^  and  every  thing 
that  creepeth^  after  birds. 


IX.  I-I5]  TRANSLATION  89 

(b)  '^-^Thcn  God  blessed  Noah  and  his  sons  and  said 
to  them,  Increase  and  multiply,  that  ye  may  fill  the  earth  ; 
2 so  shall  the  fear  of  you,  and  the  dread  of  you,  be  on  all 
the  beasts  of  the  earth,  and  on  all  the  birds  of  heaven, 
with  all  with  which  the  water  teemeth,  and  all  the  fish  of 
the  sea  ;  into  your  hands  are  they  given.  ^  Every  mov- 
ing thing  that  liveth  shall  be  yours  to  eat  ;  like  the  green 
herb,  I  give  you  all.  '^  Only  flesh  with  its  life,  its  blood, 
ye  shall  not  eat.  ^Moreover,  for  your  blood,  your  lives, 
will  I  make  demand  ;  of  any  beast  will  I  make  demand 
for  it  ;  also  at  the  hands  of  men,  at  the  hand  of  each 
one's  brother,  will  I  make  demand  for  the  lives  of  men. 
^  He  that  sheddeth  men's  blood,  by  men  shall  his  blood 
be  shed  ;  for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he  men.  "*  In- 
crease rather,  and  multiply ;  [and]  *  swarm  in  the  earth 
and  exercise  f  lordship  f  over  it. 

(c)  ^Then  God  spake  to  Noah  and  his  sons  with  him, 
saying,  ^  Lo,  I  will  establish  my  covenant  with  you  and 
your  offspring  after  you  ;  ^^  also  with  all  the  living  crea- 
tures that  are  with  you,  even  the  birds,  [and]  J  the  cattle, 
and  all  the  beasts  of  the  earth  with  you :  from  all  that 
go  forth  from  the  ark  to  all  the  beasts  of  the  earth. 
11  Yea,  I  will  establish  a  covenant  with  you,  that  all  flesh 
shall  not  again  be  cut  off  by  the  water  of  a  flood,  and 
that  there  shall  not  again  be  a  flood  to  ravage  the  earth. 
^2  God  also  said,  This  is  the  sign  of  the  covenant  that  I 
will  place  between  me  and  you,  and  every  living  creature 
that  is  with  you,  to  endless  generations :  ^^  My  bow  will 
I  place  in  the  clouds,  that  it  may  be  a  sign  of  a  cove- 
nant between  me  and  the  earth.  ^^  So  shall  it  come  to 
pass,  that,  when  I  overspread  the  earth  with  a  cloud,  the 
bow  shall  appear  in  the  cloud  ;  ^^  that  I  may  remember 
my  covenant  that  is  between  me  and  you,  and  every  liv- 

*  Gr.  Sam.  Syr.  \  Text,  multiply.  X  Gr.  Sam.  Syr. 


cp  THE    irORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [IX.  15-29 

ing  thing  of  all  flesh,  and  that  the  water  may  not  again 
become  a  flood  destroying  all  flesh.  ^^  When  the  bow  is 
in  the  cloud,  I  shall  see  it  and  remember  that  there  is 
an  endless  covenant  between  God  and  every  living  crea- 
ture, of  all  flesh,  that  is  on  the  earth,  i"  And  God  said 
to  Noah,  This  is  the  sign  of  the  covenant  that  I  estab- 
lish between  me  and  all  flesh  that  is  on  the  earth. 

b.  i^Now  the  sons  of  Noah,  that  went  forth  from 
the  ark,  were  Shem,  and  Ham,  and  Yepheth  ;  and  Ham 
was  the  father  of  Kena'an.  These  three  were  the  sons  of 
Noah,  and  from  these  the  whole  earth  spread  them- 
selves abroad.  "^^Ih-Qn  Noah,  the  husbandman, 
planted  the  first  vineyard ;  21  and,  drinking  of  the 
wine,  he  became  drunk  and  exposed  himself  within 
his  tent.  --  Now^  w^hen  Ham,  the  father  of  Kena'an  saw 
the  nakedness  of  his  father,  he  told  his  two  breth- 
ren without.  23  Then  Shem  and  Yepheth  took  a 
cloak  and,  placing  it  upon  the  shoulders  of  both  of 
them,  went  backward  and  covered  the  nakedness 
of  their  father ;  their  faces  being  backward,  so  that 
they  saw  not  the  nakedness  of  their  father.  -^  But 
■when  Noah  aw^oke  from  his  w^ine  and  learned  w^hat 
his  youngest  son  had  done  to  him,  -^  he  said, 

Cursed  be  Kena'an : 

Lowest  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his  brethren. 
26  He  said  also. 

Blessed  of  *  Yahweh  *  be  *  Shem : 

And  let  Kena'an  be  a  servant  to  him. 

2^  May  God  enlarge  Yepheth. 

Yea,  let  him  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem : 

And  let  Kena'an  be  a  servant  to  him. 
28  And  Noah  lived  after  the  Flood  three  hundred  and  fifty 
years.     297^^5  ^n  ^^^^  ^^y^  of  Noah  were  nine  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ;  then  he  died. 

*  Text,  be  Yahweh  God  of. 


X.  i-iS]  TRANSLATION  91 

4,  a,  (i)  (a)  ''•^Novv  these  are  the  generations  of  the 
sons  of  Noah,  Shcm,  Ham,  and  Yephcth  ;  and  there 
were  born  to  them  sons  after  the  Flood.  ^  The  sons 
of  Ycpheth  were  Ciomer,  and  Maghogh,  and  Maday,  cind 
Yavvan,  and  Tubhal,  and  Moshekh,*  and  Tiras.  ^And 
the  sons  of  Gomer  were  'Ashkenaz,  and  Riphath,  and 
Togharmah.  "^And  the  sons  of  Yawan  were  'Ehshah 
and  Tarshish,  Kittites  and  Rodhanites.f  ^From  these 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  dispersed  themselves.  [These 
were  the  sons  of  Ycpheth]  in  their  lands,  each  after  his 
tongue,  after  their  famiHes,  in  their  nations. 

(b)  ^And  the  sons  of  Ham  were  Kush,  and  Misrayim, 
and  Put,  and  Kena'an.  'And  the  sons  of  Kush  were 
Sebha,  and  Hawilah,  and  Sabhtah,  and  Ra'mah,  and 
Sabhtekha;  and  the  sons  of  Ra'mah  were  Shebha  and 
Dedhan.  ^  Now  Kush  begot  Nimrodh :  he  was  the 
first  to  become  a  potentate  in  the  earth.  ^He  was 
mighty  in  hunting  before  Yahweh ;  therefore  it  is  said,  Like 
Nimrodh,  mighty  in  hunting  before  Yahweh.  ^^And  the 
beginning  of  his  kingdom  was  Babhel,  and  'Orekh,J 
and  'Akkadh,  and  Kalneh  in  the  land  of  Shin'ar. 
^1  From  that  land  he  went  forth  to  'Asshur  and  built 
Nineweh,  and  Rehobhoth-'ir,  and  Kalah,  ^-and  Resen 
between  Nineweh  and  Kalah  ;  that  is  the  great  city. 
I'^And  Misrayim  begot  Ludhites,  and  'Anamites,  and 
Lehabhites,  and  Naphtuhites,  ^^  and  Pathrusites,  and 
Kasluhites,  whence  went  forth  Pelishtites,  and  Kaphto- 
rites.  ^"^  And  Kena'an  begot  Sidhon,  his  firstborn,  and 
Heth,  ^''and  the  Yebhusite,  and  the  'Eraorite,  and  the  Gir- 
gashite,  '"and  the  Hiwwite,  and  the  'Arkite,  and  the  Sinite, 
i*and  the  'Arwadite,  and  the  Semarite,  and  the  Hamathite; 
and  afterwards  the  families  of  the  Kena'anite  spread 

*  Gr.  Sam. ;  Text,  Mcshckh.       \  Gr.  Sam. ;  Te.\t,  Dodhaiiitcs. 
X  Gr. ;  text,  'Erckh. 


92        THE   WOF^LD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [X.  18-XI.  3 

themselves  gforoad.  i^  tj^us  the  border  of  the  Kena- 
*anite  w?  j  from  Sidhon  as  far  as  Gerar,  unto  'Azzah, 
as  far  ^s  Sedhom,  and  'Amorah,  and  'Adhmah,  and  Seboyim, 
unto  Lesha'.  -'^  These  are  the  sons  of  Ham,  after  their 
fariiilies,  after  their  tongues,  in  their  lands,  in  their  na- 
'tions. 

(c)  -^  Children  were  born  to  Shem  also,  the  father  of 
all  the  sons  of  'Ebher,  the  elder  brother  of  Yephoth. 
^The  sons  of  Shem  were  'Elarn,  and  'Asshur,  and  'Ar- 
pakhshadh,  and  Ludh,  and  'Aram.  '^  Kw^  the  sons  of 
'Aram  were  *Us,  and  Hul,  and  Gether,  and  Mash.  ^4  And 
'Arpakhshadh  begot  Shelah,  and  Shelah  begot  'Ebher. 
2^3  ipQ  "Ebher  also  were  born  two  sons  ;  the  name  of  the 
one  was  Pelegh,  —  for  in  his  days  the  earth  was  separated, 
—  and  the  name  of  his  brother  was  Yoktan.  ^6  ^^^ 
Yoktan  begot  'Almodhadh,  and  Sheleph,  and  Hasar- 
maweth,  and  Yerah,  2"  and  Hadhoram,  and  'Uzal,  and 
Diklah,  ^^  and  'Obhal,  and  'Abhima'el,  and  Shebha, 
2^  and  "Ophir,  and  Hawilah,  and  Yobhabh.  All  these 
the  sons  were  of  Yoktan.  ^o  ^^d  their  abode  was  from 
Mesha  to  Sephar,  the  eastern  mountain.  ^^  These  were 
the  sons  of  Shem,  after  their  famiHes,  after  their  tongues, 
in  their  lands,  in  *  their  nations.  ^^  These  are  the  families 
of  the  sons  of  Noah,  after  their  generations,  in  their  na- 
tions ;  and  from  these  the  nations  dispersed  themselves 
in  the  earth  after  the  Flood. 

(2)  ""^  ^  NoTv  the  "whole  earth  "was  of  one  language 
and  had  the  same  -words.  -  And  it  came  to  pass, 
as  they  moved  east-ward,  that  they  came  upon  a 
plain  in  the  land  of  Shin'ar,  and  there  they  abode. 
•  Then  said  they  one  to  another,  Come,  let  us  mould 
bricks  and  burn  them  thoroughly.  Thus  they  had 
brick  for  stone,  and  bitumen  they  had  for  mortar. 

*  Gr.  Syr.  ;  Icxt,  after. 


XI.  4-iS]  TRANSLA  TION  93 

'*  They  said  also,  Come,  let  us  build  ourselves  a  city, 
and  a  tower  with  its  top  in  heaven,  that  we  may 
make  ourselves  a  name,  lest  w^e  be  scattered  over 
the  face  of  the  whole  earth.  'But  Yah-weh  came 
dow^n  to  see  the  city,  and  the  tow^er  that  the  sons 
of  men  had  built.  ''  And  Yahw^eh  said,  Lo  they  are 
one  people,  and  they  all  have  one  language;  and 
this  is  their  first  exploit.  And  no-w  nothing  that 
they  plan  to  do  w^ill  be  too  hard  for  them.  "'  Come, 
let  us  go  down  and  there  confound  their  language, 
so  that  they  will  not  understand  one  another's  lan- 
guage. ^  Thus  Yahweh  scattered  them  thence  over 
the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  and  they  ceased  from 
building  the  city.  '^  Therefore  they  called  its  name 
Babhel,  because  there  Yahw^eh  confounded  the 
language  of  the  w^hole  earth,  and  thence  Yahweh 
scattered  them  over  the  face  of  the  whole  earth. 

b.  ^^  These  are  the  generations  of  Shem.  When  Shem 
was  a  hundred  years  old,  he  begot  'Arpakhshadh,  two 
years  after  the  Flood.  ^^  And  Shem  lived  after  begetting 
'Arpakhshadh  five  hundred  years,  and  begot  sons  and 
dausrhters. 

o 

^2  And  when  'Arpakhshadh  had  lived  thirty-five  years, 
he  begot  Shelah.  ^"^  And  'Arpakhshadh  lived  after  beget- 
ting Shelah  four  hundred  and  three  years,  and  begot 
sons  and  daughters. 

^^And  when  Shelah  had  lived  thirty  years,  he  begot 
*Ebher.  ^^  And  Shelah  lived  after  begetting  'Kbher  four 
hundred  and  three  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters. 

^^And  when  'Ebher  had  lived  thirty-four  years,  he 
begot  Pelegh.  ^'  And  'Ebher  lived  after  begetting  Pelegh 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daugh- 
ters. 

^^And  when  Pelegh  had  lived  thirty  years,  he  begot 


94  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [XI.  19-32 

Re'u.    ^^  And  Pelegh  lived  after  begetting  Re'u  two  hun- 
dred and  nine  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters. 

2^*  And  when  Re'u  had  Hved  thirty-two  years,  he  begot 
Serugh.  ^^  And  Re'u  lived  after  begetting  Serugh  two 
hundred  and  seven  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters. 

'■^  And  when  Serugh  had  lived  thirty  years,  he  begot 
Nahor.  ^3  p^y^^\  Serugh  lived  after  begetting  Nahor  two 
hundred  years,  and  begot  sons  and  daughters. 

^And  when  Nahor  had  lived  twenty-nine  years,  he 
begot  Terah.  "^  hxiA  Nahor  lived  after  begetting  Terah 
a  hundred  and  nineteen  years,  and  begot  sons  and 
daughters. 

^  And  when  Terah  had  lived  seventy  years,  he  begat 
'Abhram,  Nahor,  and  Haran. 

c.  -"  Now  these  are  the  generations  of  Terah.  Terah 
begot  'Abhram,  Nahor,  and  Haran ;  and  Haran  begot 
Lot.  28  ^nd  Haran  died  before  Terah  his  father  in 
the  land  of  his  birth,  in  'Ur  of  the  Kaldeans.  ^og^t  'Abh- 
ram and  Nahor  took  themselves  wives :  the  name  of 
the  wife  of  'Abhram  was  Saray,  and  the  name  of  the 
wife  of  Nahor  was  Milkah,  the  daughter  of  Haran,  the 
father  of  Milkah  and  the  father  of  Yiskah.  ^^  Now 
Saray  was  barren;  she  had  no  child.  "^^  Then  Terah 
took  'Abhram,  his  son,  and  Lot,  the  son  of  Haran,  his 
grandson,  and  Saray,  his  daughter-in-law,  the  wife  of 
'Abhram,  his  son,  and  went*  forth  with  them  from  'Ur 
of  the  Kaldeans,  to  go  to  the  land  of  Kena'an  ;  but,  when 
they  reached  Haran,  they  abode  there,  ^^^^d  the  days 
of  Terah  were  two  hundred  and  five  years ;  then  Terah 
died  in  Haran. 

*  Syr.  ;  text  makes  the  verb  plural. 


II.     COMMENTS 

The  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  embody  the  tra- 
ditions, more  or  less  elaborated,  among  the  Hebrews  with 
reference  to  the  early  history  of  the  world  and  its  inhabit- 
ants. They  may  therefore  be  treated  under  the  general 
title  of 

I.     THE  WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  (i.-xi.). 

Of  these  eleven  chapters  the  first  three  have  to  do 
with  the  origin  of  the  world  and  the  fundamental  condi- 
tions under  which  man  was  created  and  still  exists  on  the 

earth,  or 

I.    The  Origin  of  Things  (i.-iii.). 

But  things  as  they  exist,  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
are  partly  the  product  of  divine  activity  and  partly  the 
result  of  human  disturbance  of  the  divine  plan.  Hence 
there  are  two  parts  to  this  division,  the  first  of  which 
deals  with 

a.     The  Work   of   God   (i.-ii.). 

This  is  presented  in  two  distinct  accounts,  which,  al- 
though they  agree  in  certain  fundamental  features,  were 
written  by  different  authors,  and  therefore  differ  from 
each  other,  not  only  in  style  and  standpoint,  but  some- 
times also  in  conception.     See  the  Introduction,  p.  17  ff. 

(i)  The  First  Account  (i.  i-ii.  3),  an  excerpt  from 
the  Priestly  narrative,  falls  into  seven  paragraphs,  the 
first  six  of  which  correspond  to  the  six  periods  into  which 
the  divine  activity  is  divided,  while  the  seventh  describes 
the  orifiin  of  the  Sabbath.     The  record  of 


96  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM  [I.  I 

(a)  TJic  First  Day  (i.  1-5)  begins  with  a  dogmatic  state- 
ment attributing  all  things  to  God  as  the  First  Cause. 
I.  In  the  beginning,  when  the  present  order  of  things 
had  its  origin,  is  the  proper  starting-point  for  a  history 
of  the  earth  and  its  inhabitants.*  The  sole  agent  in  the 
work  to  be  described  is  God.  The  name  is  one  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Priestly  style  as  far  as  Ex.  vi.  3. 
See  the  Introduction,  p.  17.  It  denotes  the  Supreme 
Power  whose  hand  the  writer  traces  in  all  subsequent 
events,  and  whose  will  he  recognizes  as  the  only  moral 
standard.!  Of  him  it  is  said,  that  he  created,  produced, 
as  something  new  (Num.  xvi.  30),  by  his  divine  energy 
(Isa.  xl.  26),  but,  as  the  next  verse  clearly  teaches,  out  of 
previously  existing  materials  (Isa.  Ixv.  17  f.),  heaven  J 
and  earth,  the  visible  universe  in  its  original  perfection 

*  The  fact  that  jn'*a7S"i3  is  elsewhere  (Jer.  xxvi.  i ;  etc.)  always 
followed  by  a  dependent  Genitive  has  given  rise  to  the  suggestion, 
that  the  next  word,  S"i3  create,  should  be,  not  a  Perfect,  but  an 
Infinitive,  and  that  therefore  the  verse  should  be  regarded  as  a  pro- 
tasis to  V.  2  (Aben  Ezra)  or  7/.  3  (Rashi),  and  translated,  /;/  the 
beginning  of  God's  creating,  or,  more  freely.  When  God  began  to 
create,  heaven  and  earth.  The  analogy  of  ii.  4b  points  in  the  same 
direction.  On  the  other  hand,  Isa.  xlvi.  10,  where  n'*tCS~!^)/>'^>'>'/ 
the  beginnings  is  used  absolutely,  shows  that  the  present  text  is 
defensible.  Of  course,  if  the  emendation  suggested  be  adopted,  no 
interpretation  for  the  introductory  phrase  but  the  one  above  given 
is  admissible. 

t  The  original  of  God,  D'^nbs»  being  plural,  is  sometimes  con- 
strued with  a  plural  verb  (xx.  13)  or  adjective  (Jos.  xxiv.  19),  a  cir- 
cumstance that  gives  some  ground  for  explaining  it  as  a  relic  of 
])olytheism  among  the  Hebrews  (Baudissin,  Stud.  I.  55  f.);  but 
whatever  may  have  been  its  origin,  this  author  never  betrays  any 
sympathy  with  such  a  conception.  On  the  form,  see  Ges.  §  124, 
I,  c ;  on  the  construction,  comp.  2  Sam.  vii.  23  and  i  Chr.  xvii.  21. 

X  The  original  of  this  word  also  is  a  plural,  but,  since  the  form 
in  this  case  denotes  extension,  and  not  plurality,  it  should  not  bo 
reproduced  in  English.     Sec  Ges.  §  124,  \,a. 


I.  I,  2]  COMMENTS  c^'j 

(ii.  i).  This  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  verse. 
It  is  therefore  the  briefest  possible  sj;atement  to  the  effect 
that  the  present  frame  of  things  owes  its-e^cistcnce  to 
the  divinity  worshipped  by  the  Hebrews. 

2.  The  first  creative  act  is  introduced  by  a  description 
of  the  conditions  under  which  God  began  his  work. 
There  are  those  who  deny  that  v.  2  takes  the  reader 
back  to  the  beginning.  They  contend  that  it  describes 
the  condition  in  which  something,  whose  creation  is  re- 
vealed in  V.  I,  was,  when  God  proceeded  with  the  execu- 
tion of  his  plan  (Delitzsch).  This  view,  however,  requires 
a  forced  interpretation  of  the  terms  heaveji  and  earthy 
and  ignores  the  demands  of  the  structure  of  v.  2.  It  is 
a  circumstantial  sentence.  In  such  cases  the  fact  or 
state  described  is  regularly  contemporaneous  with  the 
principal  event,  and  the  connective  by  which  it  is  intro- 
duced, lit.  and^  equivalent  to  the  English  no"w.*  This 
being  so,  the  earth  can  here  only  mean  the  mass  of 
matter  out  of  which  the  world  was  finally  created  ;  in 
other  words,  chaos.  It  is  so  called,  because  the  author 
thought  of  it  as  a  single  whole  including  the  substance  of 
the  earth,  located  where  the  earth  was  destined  to  remain. 
What  was  its  origin  he  does  not  say.  When  the  scene 
opens,  it  is  there,  -waste  and  void,  a  mere  expanse  of 
matter,  without  either  features  or  inhabitants.  The  ab- 
sence of  life  is  partly  explained  by  the  darkness  that 
was  on  the  face  of  the  deep.  Deep,  being  the  parallel 
of  eartJi,  the  word  used  in  the  first  half  of  the  line,  con- 
firms the  correctness  of  the  interpretation  given  to  the 
latter,  at  the  same  time  disclosing  more  perfectly  the 
author's  conception  of  the  nature  of  chaos.  To  him  it 
was  a  mass  of  water,  under  which  a  solid  element  was 
submerged.  See  v.  9 ;  also  Ps.  civ.  6,  where  the  poet, 
picturing  the  same  thing,  says, 

*  See  Ges.  §  142,  i,  R  i. 


98  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [1.2,3 

"With  the  deep,  as  with  a  garment,  thou  coveredst  it; 
The  water  lay  over  the  mountains." 

The  Babylonians  had  the  same  conception.*  They, 
however,  represented  chaos  as  antedating  the  Creator. 
Not  so  the  Hebrew  author.  He  teaches  that,  when 
time  began,  the  spirit  of  God,  the  unseen,  but  mighty, 
Agency  by  which  creation  was  wrought,  brooded,  was 
brooding,  over  the  face  of  the  water.  In  other  words, 
although  he  does  not  assert  the  eternity  of  God,  he  does 
not  permit  one  to  think  of  anything  as  existing  before  or 
without  the  Deity.  Compare  the  Babylonian  myth  ac- 
cording to  which  the  earliest  gods  sprang  from  chaos. 
Note  also  that,  unlike  the  Phoenicians,  in  whose  cosmog- 
ony a  ''spirit"  plays  an  important  part  (Baudissin,  Stud. 
i.  II,  zi4  f.)  he  betrays  no  tendency  toward  pantheism. 

3.  God  at  once  comes  to  expression ;  God  said,  at 
the  same  time  exerting,  through  his  spirit,  the  power  by 
which  his  will  was  fulfilled.  Hence  the  expression  spirit 
of  God  is  used  interchangeably  with  word  of  God.  Comp. 
Ps.  xxxiii.  6  and  civ.  30.  He  first  commanded  light,  a 
prime  requisite  for  the  calculation  of  time,  as  well  as  a 
necessary  condition  for  the  existence  of  life  of  any  sort 
on  the  earth  ;  and  there  was  light,  without  an  interval 
of  preparation  or  development  between  the  command  and 
its  fulfilment.!     It  is  useless  to  attempt  to  explain  the 

*  One  of  their  accounts  of  creation  says  that  primevally  "  all  the 
lands  were  sea"  (Schrader,  KB,  vi.  1,40  f.;  Ball,  LE,  19;  Jastrow, 
RBA,  445);  and  another  that 

"  There  was  a  time  when  heaven  above  was  not, 
When  earth  below  as  yet  did  not  exist ; 
The  primal  Ocean  generated  them, 
The  raging  Deep  was  mother  to  them  both." 

See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  2  f . ;  KAT,  i  ff. ;  Ball,  LE,  2;  comp. 
Jensen,  Kostnoloi^ie,  I'jT.. 

t  In  the  Babylonian  myth  the  test  of  Marduk's  supremacy  is  his 


I.  3-5]  COMMENTS  99 

source  or  nature  of  this  light  in  harmony  with  the 
theories  of  modern  science.  It  was  neither  solar  light 
(Murphy)  nor  nebular  light  (Guyot)  ;  since  the  author 
clearly  knows  nothing  of  any  matter  except  the  undivided 
mass  of  which  the  surface  was  entirely  water.  To  the 
question,  How  can  there  have  been  light  without  a  lumi- 
nous body  to  produce  it }  he  would  doubtless  have  replied 
that,  since  the  sun,  etc.,  received  their  illuminating  power 
from  God,  there  was  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  the 
same  effect  might  be,  and  originally  was,  produced  by  the 
divine  fiat,  without  the  intervention  of  such  instruments. 
See  Job  xxxviii.  19  f.  He  therefore  represents  the  Cre- 
ator as  not  only  commanding  light,  but  ordaining  the 
alternation  of  light  and  darkness,  before  the  heavenly 
luminaries  existed.*  Comp.  Murphy.  4a.  The  light, 
when  it  appeared,  was  found  good ;  not  in  comparison 
with  the  darkness  that  preceded  it  (Gunkel),  —  God  still 
has  a  use  for  that,  —  but  as  perfectly  suited  to  the  divine 
purpose.     See  Ps.  civ.  31. 

4b.  The  remainder  of  v.  4  belongs  with  the  first  half 
of  V.  5.  The  two  together  describe  the  origin  of  day  and 
night.  God  separated  the  light  from  the  darkness ; 
fixed  definite  limits  for  their  duration,  and  ordained  that; 
they  should  thenceforth  alternate  with  each  other  in  the 
world.  5a.  He  called  the  light,  or,  strictly,  that  part 
of  the  diurnal  period  during  which  light  reigns,  Day,  as 
it  has  ever  since  been  termed  ;  and  the  darkness,  or 
the  part  during  which  darkness  reigns,  he  called  Night. 

5b.    The  author,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  does 

ability  to  make  a  garment  vanish  and  reappear  at  his  command. 
See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  22  f. ;  Ball,  LE,  8. 

*  The  Babylonians  also  represented  light  as  existing  hefore  the 
creation  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  the  solar  deity,  Marduk,  being  a 
son  of  one  of  the  great  gods  (Gunkel,  SC^  \  16). 


100  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [I.  5 

not  seem  to  have  thought  of  God  as  requiring  any  given 
length  of  time  for  his  v^rorks  ;  yet,  between  those  just 
described  and  the  one  to  follow,  it  became  evening,  the 
evening  of  the  first  bright  period  after  the  creation  of 
light.  Then,  after  the  interval  of  darkness  for  which 
the  divine  wisdom  had  provided,  it  became  morning,  the 
second  morning.  The  whole  interval  between  the  two 
constituted  one  day.  The  meaning  of  the  word  day  in 
this  connection  is  disputed.  Some,  following  Augustine, 
take  it  figuratively,  as  an  indefinitely  extended  period, 
because  (/)  it  is  indefinite  in  ii.  4  and  elsewhere,  and  in 
Ps.  xc.  4  a  thousand  years  are  said  to  be  as  a  day  with 
God ;  and  {2)  there  was  as  yet  no  sun  by  which  a  natural 
day  could  be  measured.  The  basal  reason,  however,  for 
tjhis  interpretation  is  (j)  that  it  is  required  to  harmonize 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible  with  the  results  of  scientific 
investigation.  The  irrelevancy  of  all  these  arguments  is 
apparent.  The  question  is  not,  what  the  word  may,  but 
what  it  actually  does  mean  ;  and  this  must  be  determined 
by  examining  it  in  the  relations  in  which  it  is  employed, 
without  reference  to  the  demands  of  modern  science  or 
theology.  An  examination  of  this  sort  confirms  the  im- 
pression made  upon  the  casual  reader  ;  viz.,  that  day 
here  means  simply  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours.  (/) 
This  interpretation  is  in  harmony  with  the  writer's  evi- 
dent purpose,  to  describe  the  origin  of  the  visible  world 
and  its  more  salient  phenomena.  See  the  literal  heaven 
of  V.  8,  and  the  literal  earth  and  sea  of  v.  10.  (2)  The 
day  in  question  commenced  in  the  morning,  as  the 
literal  day  originally  did  among  the  Hebrews,  as  well  as 
among  the  Babylonians  {Enc.  Bib.  Art.  Day),  and  con- 
sisted of  a  light  portion  called  by  a  familiar  name,  and 
a  dark  portion  similarly  designated.  (J)  It  is  one  of 
seven  days,  the  last  of  which  was  the  first  Sabbath  in 


I.  5-7]  COMMENTS  loi 

the  world's  history.  (^)  The  literal  interpretation  fur- 
nishes a  starting  point  for  time  and  the  author's  care- 
ful system  of  chronology.  Finally,  (5)  as  has  been 
suggested,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  account  to  suppose  that,  to  the  mind  of  its  author, 
God  required  time  for  the  production  of  his  works. 
These  considerations  show  that  the  traditional  is,  in  this 
case,  the  natural  and  rational  interpretation,  while  that 
which  gives  the  word  day  a  figurative  meaning  of  any 
sort  is  mistaken.     Comp.  Delitzsch. 

(b)  The  Secojid  Day  {z>v.  6-S).  6.  The  second  morn- 
ing dawned  on  the  same  watery  waste  described  in 
V.  2.  In  this  God  commanded  that  there  should  shape 
itself  an  expanse,  a  solid  partition,  in  the  middle,  and 
parallel  with  the  surface,  of  the  water;  making  a 
lateral  division  in  the  fluid  mass  :  and  so  it  "was.* 
The  last  clause  takes  the  place  of  a  repetition  of  the  pre- 
ceding sentence,  with  an  effect  much  the  same  as  that 
produced  in  v.  3.  The  impression  here  also  is  that  the 
divine  command  was  no  sooner  given  than  fulfilled. 

7.  Thus  God  made  the  expanse.  The  material  of 
which  it  was  made  is  not  indicated,  but  the  following 
words  describe  more  fully  the  purpose  that  it  served. 
Itf  separated  the  water  that  was  under  it,  the 
water  eventually  collected  into  the  sea  of  Hebrew  geo- 
graphy {z>.  10),  from  the  water  that  was  above  it,  the 
water   stored    in   the    unseen    celestial    reservoirs    (Ps. 

*  The  Hebrew  text  inserts  these  words  at  the  end  of  v.  7;  but 
their  occurrence  immediately  after  the  creative  command  in  vv.  9, 
II,  15,  and  24  shows  that  the  Greek  Version,  which  is  here  fol- 
lowed, has  the  correct  reading. 

t  The  text  has  Go(/^  but  the  preceding  verse  shows  that  the  sub- 
ject is  the  expanse.     So  the  Syriac  Version. 


102  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [I.  7-9 

cxlviii.  4),  to  be  poured  as  a  curse  or  a  blessing  upon  the 
earth  (vii.  11  ;  Ps.  civ.  13). 

8.  This  soHd  structure,  by  which  the  Hebrews  repre- 
sented the  earth  as  overarched  (Prv.  viii.  27  f.),*  and 
above  which  they  located  the  dwelling  of  the  Almighty 
(Am.  Lx.  6 ;  Ps.  civ.  3),  God  called  Heaven.  Following 
this  statement  the  reader  misses,  in  the  original,  as  well  as 
in  the  English  Version,  the  declaration  that  finds  a  cor- 
responding place  in  all  the  other  sections  of  this  chapter. 
The  omission  is  sometimes  explained  (/)  by  supposing 
that  the  author  restricted  himself  in  the  use  of  it  to  seven 
times,  or  {2)  that,  since  neither  heaven  nor  earth  was  as 
yet  complete,  he  did  not  think  it  appropriate  in  the 
present  case  (Delitzsch).  Neither  of  these  reasons,  how- 
ever, has  much  weight.  On  the  second,  see  v.  10. 
Hence  it  seems  safe  to  assume  that  here,  also,  the  writer 
added,  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.f 

(c)  The  Third  Day  {vv.  9-12).  9.  The  removal  of 
the  water  above  the  expanse  did  not  change  the  face  of 
the  rest  of  chaos.  It  was  still,  to  all  appearance,  entirely 
water.     God  next  commanded  the  water  under  heaven 


*  The  Babylonians  also;  see  Jensen,  Kosmologie,  gt. 

t  The  Babylonians  represented  heaven  as  formed  from  one  half 
of  the  body  of  Tiamat,  when  Marduk  slew  her.  The  following  are 
the  lines  from  the  Creation  Epic  bearing  on  the  subject : 

"  He  split  her,  like  a  flattened  fish,  in  two  ; 
Took  half  of  her  and  made  it  heaven's  vault; 
Then  drew  a  bolt  across  and  stationed  guards, 
Them  charging  not  to  let  her  water  forth." 

See  Schrader,  ITB,  vi.  i,  30  f.  ;  Ball,  LE,  11  ;  Jastrow,  RBA,  428; 
comp.  Jensen,  Kosmoloi^ie,  343.  Berosus  interpreted  this  as 
meaning  that  Bel  (Marduk)  divided  the  primeval  darkness,  and 
thus  separated  earth  and  heaven  (Cory,  AF,  59). 


1.9-"]  COMMENTS  1 03 

to  gather  itself  into  one  mass,*  a  more  compact  body, 
that  dry  ground,!  the  solid  clement  hitherto  concealed, 
might  appear ;  and  this  also  took  place. 

10.  Here,  again,  the  original  is  defective;  and  here, 
again,  the  Greek  Version  supplies  the  missing  statement, 
Thus  the  water  under  heaven  gathered  itself  into 
its  mass,  and  dry  ground  appeared.  The  way  in 
which  this  result  was  produced  is  not  explained,  but,  as 
the  author  seems  to  have  believed,  with  other  Hebrews, 
that  the  land  was  not  only  surrounded  by,  but  supported 
on  the  water  (vii.  11  ;  Ex.  xx.  4;  Ps.  xxiv.  2),  J  he  may 
have  thought  of  it  as  making  its  appearance  by  simply 
coming  to  the  surface.  See  the  picturesque  description 
of  Ps.  civ.  7  ff.  ;  also  Job  xxxviii.  8  ff.  In  harmony  with 
this  conception  God  called  the  mass  of  "water,  viewed 
as  a  single  whole,  Sea,  not  scas.^  Comp.  E.  V.  Note 
that  land  and  sea  are  pronounced  good  under  circum- 
stances precisely  such  as  those  under  which  the  present 
text  of  V.  8  omits  this  formula.  Hence,  the  principal 
reason  usually  given  for  its  omission  in  that  passage  is 
invalid. 

11.  To  the  work  already  wrought  God  now,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  sixth  day,  adds  a  second  :  the  land,  freed 
from  its  watery  covering  and  expo.sed  to  the  quickening 
influence  of  the  light,  is  commanded  to  put  forth  vege- 
tation of   all  kinds.     The  various  species  are  grouped 

*  The  original  has  C*lp!:> //<za',  but,  since  the  Greek  Version  has 
the  equivalent  of  niP-'  fnass,  and  this  word  is  used  in  v.  10  for 
the  thing  here  signified,  the  substitution  of  the  latter  for  the  for- 
mer seems  justified.     See  Ball. 

t  The  original  has  the  dry  ground,  but  the  analogy  of  "i^S  {v.  3), 
etc.,  requires  that  the  article  be  omitted.     Comp.  Ball. 

X  So  also  the  Babylonians.     See  Jensen,  Kosmologie,  253. 

§  The  original  is  plural,  but  here,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  words 
for  heaven  and  water,  the  form  denotes,  not  plurality,  but  exten- 
sion.    See  Ges.  §  124,  i,  a. 


I04  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [I.  11-14 

under  two  heads,  the  first  of  which  is  the  herb,  the 
smaller  plants,  including  grasses  for  animals,  and  grains 
and  vegetables  for  both  them  and  man  {vv.  29  f.  ;  Jer. 
xiv.  6;  Deu.  xi.  15;  Ps.  civ.  14);  yielding  seed,  by 
which  they  may  be  reproduced ;  after  its  kind,*  with 
its,  /.  c,  the  herb's,  characteristics.  The  second  order, 
the  tree,!  is  described  as  bearing  fruit,  wherein,  /.  c, 
in  the  fruit,  is  its  seed,  the  seed  by  which  the  tree  is  to 
be  propagated,  after  its  kind,J  on  the  earth,  of  which 
the  land  is  only  a  part.§ 

12.  The  land  put  forth,  ||  as  was  commanded,  vegeta- 
tion of  the  kinds  described  ;  and  again,  for  the  fourth 
time,  the  Creator  was  well  pleased. 

(d)  The  Fourth  Day  {vv.  14-20).  14.  The  work  of 
the  fourth  day  completes  that  of  the  first.  On  the  first 
day  God  created  light ;  on  the  fourth,  he  commanded 
that  there  be  lights.  The  language  used  implies  that, 
previous  to  this  time,  nothing  of  the  kind  had  existed. 

*  This 'phrase,  omitted  in  the  Hebrew  text,  is  supplied  from  v. 
12.  On  the  form  ins'^nb'  see  Ges.  §  91,  i,  R  i,  (^y  on  the  mean- 
ing comp.  Frd.  Delitzsch,  HA^  70  f.  The  Greek  Version  adds  after 
likeness  both  here  and  \x\v.  12. 

t  The  text  has  fruit-tree,  but  this  is  too  restricted,  and,  as 
appears  from  v.  12,  was  not  the  original  reading. 

X  The  text  inserts  this  phrase  T^iiiox  fruity  but  by  such  an  arrange- 
ment the  relative  wherein  is  separated  from  its  antecedent,  and  the 
meaning  obscured.  The  difficulty  is  avoided  by  adopting,  as  is 
done  above,  the  Greek  reading.  The  form,  moreover,  in  the 
original  should  be,  not,  12"*^^  but  *in3"^!2b'  as  elsewhere,  except  in 
Lev.  xi.  15,  22  and  Deu.  xiv.  14. 

§  The  rendering  earth  is  necessary  to  avoid  tautology.  Per- 
haps the  whole  phrase,  which  is  superfluous,  should  be  omitted  ;  as 
it  is  in  the  next  verse. 

II  The  present  text,  probably,  as  T>all  suggests,  by  mistake,  has 
SVir*  let  it  cause  to  ^o  forth ^  instead  of  the  SI^in>  let  it  cause  to 
shoot,  of  the  preceding  verse. 


1 .  1 4,  1 5]  COMMENTS  1 05 

This  natural  inference  is  confirmed  by  v.  16,  where  their 
creation  as  new  phenomena  in  the  world  is  distinctly 
afTirmcd.  Comix  Murphy.  These  li<^hts  are  to  be  in 
the  expanse  of  heaven.  This  expression  must  be 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  what  has  preceded.  If  the 
author  really  thought  of  heaven  as  a  material  canopy,  he 
must  have  shared  to  some  extent  the  primitive  concep- 
tion with  reference  to  the  heavenly  bodies  which  was 
current  in  his  time,  to  the  effect  that  they  were  in  some 
way  attached  to  it.*  These  bodies  were  to  serve  several 
purposes.  In  the  first  place,  they  were  to  distinguish 
betTveen,  not  to  produce,  —  both  had  already  been 
created,  —  day  and  night,  as  adjuncts  of  these  divisions 
of  the  diurnal  period.  They  were  also  to  be  signs,  indi- 
cating points  of  the  compass  (Num.  xxi.  11),  changes  in 
the  weather  (Mat.  xvi.  2  f.),  and  extraordinary  events 
(Joel  iii,  3  f.;  ii.  30  f.).  Next,  they  were  to  mark  the 
return  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  seasons ;  whose  dates, 
among  the  Hebrews,  were  generally  determined  by  the 
changes  of  the  moon  (Ps.  civ^  19  ;  Lev.  xxiii.).  Further, 
they  were  to  measure  days  and  years,  as  elements  in 
the  calculation  of  time  (Jos.  x.  12  ;   i  Kgs.  xx.  22). 

15.  Having  enumerated  these  four  functions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  the  author  finally  adds  the  one  that 
would  be  the  first  to  suggest  itself  to  a  modern  thinker, 
to  shed  light  upon  the  earth ;  doubtless  for  the  pur- 
pose of  explaining  why,  although  the  existence  of  light 
was  not  dependent  on  them,  there  was  more  of  it  when 
they  appeared  than  when  they  were  invisible.! 

*  On  the  Babylonian  idea,  see  Jastrow,  RBA,  442,  455. 

t  The  Samaritans  have  this  specification  at  the  beginning  (7/.  14), 
as  well  as  at  the  end,  of  the  list;  but  the  reading  is  prohably  an 
imitation,  conscious  or  unconscious,  of  V7>.  15  and  17.  Compare 
also  the  Greek  Version,  which  prefixes  to  light  the  earth  and  to 
rule  day  and  flight  to  v.  14. 


lo6  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    \\.  16-18 

16.  The  writer  distinguishes  tTvo  great  lights,  as  if 
the  sun  and  the  moon  were  both  larger  than  all  the  rest ; 
the  former  being  made  to  rule,  /.  r.,  preside  over,  day, 
the  lesser  in  like  manner  to  rule  night.*  He  merely 
mentions  the  stars,  giving  no  hint  of  their  actual  size 
or  their  immense  distance  from  the  earth. f 

17.  These  luminaries  God  placed  in  the  expanse, 
assigning  them  their  places  with  reference  to  one  an- 
other and  their  courses  across  the  face  of  heaven  ;  and 
they  began  to  perform  the  functions  described.  Notice, 
however,  that,  in  repeating  his  account  of  these  functions, 
the  author  takes  greater  liberties  than  he  has  heretofore 
allowed  himself.  Thus,  the  first  of  the  previous  enumer- 
ation now  becomes  the  last,  and  the  last,  to  shed  light 
upon  the  earth,  the  first. 

18.  Moreover,  no  reference  is  here  made  to  the 
appointment  of  the  lights  created  for  signs,  etc.,  its 
place  being  taken  by  a  specification  strictly  applicable 
only  to  the  sun  and  the  moon,  viz.,  to  rule  over  day  and 
over  night ;  and  in  the  next  phrase  light  and  darkness 
are  substituted  for  the  day  and  nigJit  of  v.  14.  if 

*  On  the  comparative  importance  of  the  sun  and  the  moon 
among  the  Babylonians,  see  Boscawen,  BM,  57  ff. 

f  Baudissin  {Stud.  i.  120  f.)  thinks  that  the  use  of  the  term  rule 
of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  their  creation  is 
represented  as  postponed  until  the  second  half  of  the  creative 
week,  indicates  that  they  were  regarded  by  the  author  as  personal 
beings.     Comp.  Gunkel,  SC,  9. 

X  The  Babylonian  account  of  the  creation  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
runs  as  follows  :  — 

"  He  made  the  stations  for  the  greater  gods  ; 
The  stars,  like  them,  as  constellations  placed. 
He  fixed  the  year,  and  its  divisions  marked  ; 
For  each  of  the  twelve  months  three  stars  he  set. 
Throughout  the  year,  from  end  to  end  thereof, 
He  fixed  the  place  of  Nibir  [Jupiter]  for  their  bound  ; 
^     That  none  might  change  its  course  or  go  astray. 


I.  20,  21]  COMMENTS  107 

(e)  TJie  Fifth  Day  {vv.  20-23).  Hitherto  there  has 
been  no  animal  life  on  the  earth.  God  now  commands 
that  the  water  swarm  with  abundant  living  crea- 
tures. The  term  suann,  with  its  complement,  abundant^ 
lit.  sicarni  a  swarm,  is  intended  to  convey  the  impression 
of  multitude.  The  writer,  however,  does  not  mean  to 
indicate  that  the  water  was  at  first  more  thickly  inhabited 
than  in  his  own  day.  This  is  clear  from  v.  22.  He  is 
merely  accounting  for  the  multiplicity  of  life,  or,  as  the 
psalmist  (civ.  25)  puts  it,  the  "creeping  things  innumer- 
able, both  small  and  great  beasts,"  with  which  the  sea,  as 
he  knew  it,  teemed.  At  the  same  time  God  summons  into 
existence  birds  ;  not  the  winged  reptiles  of  the  Jurassic 
period  (Guyot),  but,  as  appears  from  v.  21,  the  winged 
creatures  popularly  so  designated  when  this  account  was 
written.  They  are  to  fiy  over  the  earth,  across  the 
expanse  of  heaven,  /.  ^.,  in  the  space  between  earth 
and  heaven.  Compare  the  English  Version,  where  the 
rendering  "in  the  open  firmament  "  is  misleading.* 

21.  Here,  as  in  v.  16,  the  general  gives  place  to  the 
particular,  and  the  most  remarkable  examples  take  pre- 
cedence. In  this  case  it  is  the  great  monsters,  not 
the  extinct  reptiles  of  the  Jurassic  period  (Guyot),  but 
the  huge  forms  of  animal  life,  real  or  imaginary,  with 
which  the  Hebrews  peopled  the  great  deep  (Ps.  civ.  25  ; 

With  him  he  stablished  Bel's  and  Ea's  place. 

Then  opened  he  on  either  side  great  doors, 

And  made  the  bolt  secure  to  left  and  right. 

Midway  in  heaven  he  the  zenitli  fi.xed. 

He  sent  forth  Nannar  the  [moon],  gave  night  to  his  charge, 

Ordained  him  for  the  night,  to  measure  days." 

(Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  30  f.  ;  Ball,  LE,  12;  Jastrow,  RBA,  434  f-)- 
In  this  passage  the  identification  of  the  moon  and  the  stars  with 
divine  beings  is  unmistakahle. 

*  The  present  text  of  this  verse  should  be  corrected  by  the 
addition  of  and  so  it  was  from  the  Greek  Version. 


io8  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [I.  21-24 

cxlviii.  7).*  These  God  created,  and  all  the  other  liv- 
ing, moving  creatures  that  shared  with  them  the 
watery  element,  after  their  kinds  ;t  also  every  vringed 
bird.  The  epithet  ivingcd  does  not  imply  that  the  au- 
thor distinguished  two  kinds  of  birds,  one  of  which  had 
no  wings,  but  simply  emphasizes  a  familiar  characteristic 
of  the  class  so  described. 

22.  Finally,  God  blessed  them,  by  giving  them,  as 
he  had  already  given  the  plants,  the  power  of  perpetuat- 
ing their  kind.  This  power  is  bestowed  upon  the  aquatic 
animals,  —  which,  however,  are  not  mentioned  by  name, 
as  one  would  expect  them  to  be,  in  this  connection,  — 
that  they  may  fill  the  water  in  the  sea.  The  birds,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  to  multiply  on  the  land. 

(f)  The  Sixth  Day  {vv.  24-31).  24.  The  furniture 
of  the  land  is  still  incomplete.  It  is  now  commanded 
to  produce  living  creatures,  beings  of  the  same 
general  character  as  those  belonging  to  the  sea,  —  ani- 
mals. These  are  divided  into  three  general  classes, 
of  which  the  first  is  cattle,  here  the  domestic  animals. 
Comp.  vi.  7.  The  creeping  things  doubtless  include 
not  only  reptiles,  but  all  the  other  smaller  animals  that 
move  on  or  near  the  ground  ;  which  are  therefore  in  the 
next  verse  called  creeping  tilings  of  the  ground.  The 
beasts  %  of  the  earth  are  here  the  larger  animals  that 

*  Gunkel  sees  in  these  creatures  a  relic  of  the  Babylonian  con- 
ception of  chaos,  with  its  mythical  monsters,  as  described  by 
Bcrosus  {SCy  17  f.,  120 ;  Cory,  AF,  58). 

\  In  the  form  Cn3^!2b  the  vocalization  is  that  of  a  plural;  but 
the  safer  opinion,  even  if  the  suffix  includes  the  sea-monsters,  as 
well  as  the  other  aquatic  animals,  is  that  the  noun  is  here,  as  in  all 
other  cases  in  which  it  is  found,  a  singular.  See  Ew.  §  247,  d; 
comp.  Ges.  §  91,  2,  R  i. 

X  On  the  form  XHTI'  sec  Ges.  §  90,  3,  bj  comp.  v.  25.  The 
Samaritans  read  r\^r\- 


I.  24-26]  COMMENTS  109 

roam  at  large  and  "seek  their  meat  from  God"  (Ps.  civ. 
21).  According  to  Ps.  civ.  29,  as  well  as  Gen.  ii.  19,  all 
these  animals  were  made  of  the  material  of  the  ground 
on  which  they  were  destined  to  live  and  move. 

25.  In  reporting  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  com- 
mand the  author  employs  the  same  terms  that  he  has 
just  used  in  a  different  order,  but  the  change  to  beasts 
of  the  earth,  cattle  and  creeping  things  does  woX. 
seem  to  have  any  significance.  There  is  probably  just 
as  little  in  the  omission  of  a  formal  blessing  on  these 
animals,  such  as  was  bestowed  upon  those  of  the  sea  and 
the  air.  If  it  was  intentional,  the  reason  can  only  be  a 
desire  to  avoid  the  repetition,  at  this  point,  of  a  formula 
easily  supplied  from  v.  22.     Comp.  Delitzsch.* 

26.  On  the  sixth,  as  on  the  third  day,  there  were  two 
creative  acts.  The  second  was  the  production  of  nature's 
lord  and  God's  masterpiece.  The  phraseology  used  is 
calculated  to  attract  attention.  God  says,  not,  Let  there 
be,  or,  Let  the  land  bring  forth,  but,  as  if  he  now  had  on 
hand  a  matter  in  which  he  took  more  than  usual  interest. 
Let  us  make.  It  is  a  mistake  to  find  in  the  employ- 
ment here  of  a  plural  subject  (/)  an  assertion  of  the 
majesty  of  God  (Gesenius),  {2)  a  summons  to  his  divine 
powers  (Dillmann),  or  (j)  an  intimation  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  (Murphy).  It  is  best  interpreted  as 
revealing  the  belief  of  the  author  in  the  existence,  be- 
fore the  creation  of  men,  of  a  race  of  intelligences  even 
nearer  to  God  than  his  human  children  were  destined 

*  There  are  fragments  of  a  Babylonian  account  of  the  creation 
of  the  land  animals,  in  which  the  terms  used  are  those  employed 
by  the  Hebrews.     One  of  them  says, 

"  The  gods,  when  they  together  framed  [the  world], 
Created  [heaven]  and  ordained  [the  earth], 
Caused  livint;  creatures  to  come  forth  .  .  .  , 
The  cattle,  the  wild  beasts,  the  creeping  things." 

(Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  42  f.  ;  Ball,  LE,  13.) 


no      THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM         [I.  26 

to  stand.  There  are  other  references  to  such  a  heavenly 
court  (r.  g.,  I  Kgs.  xxiL  19;  Job  i.  6;  Ps.  xxix.  9); 
which,  according  to  Job  xxxviii.  7,  existed  when  the 
foundations  of  the  earth  were  laid.*  The  objection  that, 
by  addressing  the  "  sons  of  God  "  in  these  terms,  the 
Creator  would  have  made  them  sharers  in  one  of  his 
divine  prerogatives  (Dillmann)  is  easily  met ;  since  the 
form  used,  like  the  French  assister,  is  warranted  as 
merely  recognizing  the  presence  of  interested  spectators. 
See  Isa.  vi.  8.f  The  last  of  God's  works  is  to  be  man  in 
the  collective  sense,  i.  e.,  men.l  The  nature  of  these 
new  creatures  is  described  in  the  phrase  in  our  image ; 
but  not  so  clearly  as  it  might  have  been,  as  is  shown  by 
the  difference  of  opinion  with  reference  to  the  meaning 
of  these  words.  From  v.  27  it  appears  that  by  oicr 
image  is  meant  the  image  of  God.  The  equivalence  of 
these  two  expressions  seems,  at  first  sight,  to  tell  against 
the  interpretation  of  the  plural  pronoun  just  given,  but 
the  apparent  discrepancy  disappears,  when  one  reflects 
that  the  image  of  God  is  also  the  image  of  the  sons  of 
God.  The  fact  that,  in  v.  27,  the  phrase  "  image  of  God  " 
takes  the  place  of  both  of  those  here  used  shows  that 
after  his  likeness  is  synonymous  with  the  expression 
preceding.  Comp.  Delitzsch.  The  further  question, 
what  is  meant  by  the  image  of  God,  seems  answered  in 
the  remainder  of  the  verse,  where  God  is  represented  as 
setting  forth  the  purpose  for  which  men  were  to  be  cre- 
ated, viz.y  lordship  over  every  living  thing,  whether  of 

*  According  to  Jub.  ii.  i  the  angels  were  created  on  the  first 
day. 

t  This  is  the  interpretation  adopted  by  Philo  {Works,  i.  21  f.), 
and  it  seems  to  have  been  the  favorite  with  Jewish  authorities. 
Sec  Bcr.  Rah.  31  ff. 

X  The  verb  of  the  next  clause  is  plural. 


1.26-28]  COMMENTS  in 

the  sea  or  of  the  land.  The  image  of  God,  therefore, 
must  consist  in  those  endowments  which  distinguish  men 
from  the  lower  animals,  and  enable  the  former  to  maintain 
over  the  latter  a  mastery  only  inferior  to  that  of  the 
Creator.  See  ix.  2  ;  Ps.  viii.  6/5  ;  Sir.  xviii.  3  ;  comp. 
Gunkel.  These,  however,  are  but  reflections  of  the 
divine  attributes  most  perfectly  revealed  in  creation. 
None  of  the  animals  is  excepted,  even  the  beasts  *  of 
the  earth  being  placed  under  the  dominion  of  mankind. 

2^.  Men  were  created  male  and  female.  Some  of 
the  Jewish  authorities  interpret  these  words  as  meaning 
that  the  human  race  sprang  from  a  single  androgyn,  from 
one  side  (not  rib)  of  whom  God  finally  (ii.  21)  made  the 
first  woman  {Bcr.  Rab.  30),  and  Lenormant  {BH,  61  ff.) 
adopts  this  interpretation  ;  but  there  is  absolutely  no  in- 
ternal evidence  to  support  it.  In  fact,  it  is  forbidden  by 
the  terms  of  the  blessing  at  once  bestowed.  See  also 
v.  2.  The  author  does  not  here  indicate  how  many  of 
the  genus  homo  were  created,  but  the  sequel  (v.  3)  shows 
that  he  intended  to  teach  that  the  human  race,  like  the 
various  species  of  the  lower  animals,  concerning  which 
his  ideas  may  be  inferred  from  vi.  19,  had  its  origin  in  a 
single  pair.f 

28.  In  the  blessing  bestowed  on  the  first  pair  they  are 
commissioned,  not  only  to  fill  the  earth,  but  to  subdue 
it.  The  last  phrase  is  especially  significant.  It  shows 
that,  to  the  mind  of  the  author,  the  earth  was  not  a  para- 
dise in  which  men  could  live  without  effort,  but  a  field  for 
the  employment  and  development  of  the  powers,  mental 
and  physical  as  well  as  moral,  with  which  they  had  been 

*  The  text  has  the  earth ;  but  since  ix.  2  and  Ps.  viii.  Z/'j  have 
the  beasts  of  the  earthy  the  missing  word,  rT^n?  should  doubtless 
be  inserted  in  tliis  jjassa^je.     See  the  Syriac  Version. 

t  The  word  inS  is  equivalent  to,  if  not  a  mistake  for  CHH* 


112  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [II.  28-31 

endowed.  God  had  worked  hitherto  ;  now  they  were  not 
only  to  enter  into,  but  supplement,  the  labors  of  their 
Maker.  He  had  made,  they  were  to  control,  the  entire 
animal  world.* 

29.  Men  were  not  yet,  however,  permitted  to  kill,  even 
for  food,  the  animals  thus  placed  "under  their  feet,"  but, 
according  to  the  author,  were  restricted  to  an  exclusively 
vegetable  diet.  See  Ovid,  Met.  xv.  96  ff.  Still,  they 
were  generously  provided  for,  being  given  to  eat  every 
herb  and  every  tree  ;  f  i.  e.y  all  the  grains  and  vegetables 
and  whatever  grew  on  the  trees.  J 

30.  The  lower  animals,  even  the  beasts  of  the  earth, 
as  well  as  the  birds  of  heaven  and  the  creeping 
things,§  at  first  received  only  every  green  herb  for 
food ;  in  other  words,  the  lion  was  compelled,  in  the 
language  of  Isa.  xi.  7,  to  "eat  straw  like  the  ox."  See 
Vergil,  Geor.  i.  130;  comp.  Strack.  ||  The  cattle  and  the 
fish  of  the  sea  are  not  mentioned  in  this  connection,  per- 
haps because  the  former  are  included  in  the  term  beasts 
of  the  earth  (comp.  Knobel),  and  the  author  could  not 
imagine  the  latter  as  ever  having  subsisted  on  the  sort 
of  food  provided  for  land  animals. 

31.  The  work  of  this  d^y,  like  that  of  the  others,  was 

*  The  text  of  the  latter  half  of  this  verse  is  clearly  incomplete. 
It  should  follow  V.  26,  as  it  does  in  the  Greek,  and  to  the  extent  of 
supplying  the  cattle  in  the  Syriac  Version. 

t  For  yj7n  read,  with  the  Samaritans,  yr-     Comp.  Ball. 

X  The  text,  for  fruit,  has  fruit  of  a  tree;  but  since,  according 
to  vv.  1 1  £.,  it  is  strictly  the  fruit,  and  not  the  tree,  that  yields  the 
seed  by  which  the  tree  is  reproduced,  it  is  better,  following  the 
Greek  Version,  to  omit  the  limiting  phrase. 

§  The  subject  of  the  participle  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  Greek 
Version.     Vox  tt7?21"l  the  Samaritans  read  C^^nin- 

II  The  verb  ^^ivi\  which  is  needed  to  make  sense,  is  wanting  in 
the  original  of  this  verse. 


I.  31-II.  I]  COMMENTS  113 

good,  but  the  usual  statement  to  that  effect  is  omitted. 
Its  place  is  taken  by  God's  estimate  of  all  that  he  had 
made.  Viewed  as  a  completed  whole,  he  found  it,  not 
only  satisfactory,  but  very  good.  The  night  that  fol- 
lowed closed  a*  sixth  day.f 

The  present  arrangement  of  the  text  is  such  as,  at  first 
sight,  to  create  the  impression  that  the  account  of  crea- 
tion with  which  Genesis  begins  closes  with  the  end  of  the 
first  chapter.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case,  since  the 
record  of 

(g)  The  Seventh  Day  (ii.  1-3),  in  which  the  signifi- 
cance of  its  arrangement  as  a  whole  appears,  is  neces- 
sary to  its  completion. 

I.  The  statement,  Thus,  lit.  and,  heaven  and  earth 
■were  finished,  doubtless  means  that,  at  the  close  of  the 
sixth  day,  they  were  complete ;  and  all  their  host,  not 

*  The  present  text  has  the  definite  article  before  the  numeral, 
but  the  Greek  Version  omits  it,  and  this,  since  there  seems  to  be 
no  reason  why  the  author  should  adopt  a  peculiar  mode  of  expres- 
sion in  this  instance,  is  probably  the  correct  reading.  Comp.  Ges. 
§  126,  5,  R  I,  a. 

t  The  creation  of  mankind  was  attributed  to  different  deities  by 
the  Babylonians  of  different  dates,  and  places.  In  the  epic  from 
which  several  quotations  have  already  been  made,  Marduk  is  the 
one  thus  honored.     He  is  praised  as 

"  The  lord  whose  spell  is  health,  who  wakes  the  dead ; 
Who  mercy  showed  to  the  defeated  gods, 
Took  from  the  gods,  his  foes,  the  yoke  imposed, 
And  in  their  stead  man  into  being  brought." 

See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  34  f.  ;  Ball,  LE,  16  ;  Jastrow,  RBA,  438. 
The  poem,  so  far  as  preserved,  does  not  give  the  details  of  man's 
orijjin,  but  Berosus  says  that  Bel  (Marduk),  when  he  saw  the  earth, 
as  the  result  of  the  destruction  of  a  preceding  race  of  monsters, 
without  inhabitants,  bade  one  of  the  other  gods  cut  off  his  head, 
mix  earth  with  the  flowing:  blood,  and  thus  make  men  and  animals 
that  could  bear  the  light  (Gunkel,  SC,  17;  Cory,  AF,  60). 


114  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [II.  1-3. 

merely  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  elsewhere  called  the 
host  of  hcavcti  (Deu.  iv.  19),  but  the  entire  multitude  of 
creatures,  animate  and  inanimate,  with  which,  during  the 
preceding  six  days,  heaven  and  earth  had  been  furnished. 
The  angels,  since  the  author  makes  no  reference  to  their 
creation,  although  he  recognizes  their  existence  (i.  26)^ 
can  hardly  be  included.     Comp.  Strack. 

2.  What  follows  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with 
this  introductory  statement.  If,  therefore,  the  present 
text  be  retained,  the  words  which,  in  the  English  Version, 
are  rendered,  Ajid  on  tJie  scvetith  day  God  finis Jicd  Jus 
work  wJiich  he  had  made,  etc.,  can  only  refer  to  the  ces- 
sation of  the  activity  of  which  the  various  works  previ- 
ously described  were  the  result.  This  thought  is  better 
expressed  by  the  rendering,  And  when,  on  the  seventh 
day,  God  had  put  an  end  to  the,  lit.  his,  work  that 
he  had  done,  i.  e.,  had  been  doing,  etc.*  The  correctness 
of  this  interpretation  appears  from  its  harmony  with  the 
obvious  meaning  of  the  latter  half  of  the  verse ;  where 
the  statement,  that  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day 
from  all  the,  lit.  his,  work  that  he  had  done  can  only . 
mean  that,  on  the  given  day,  he  refrained  from  the  work, 
the  activity,  in  which  he  had  previously  been  engaged. f 

3.  This  seventh  day,  because  on  it  he  celebrated,  so  to 
speak,  the  completion  of  his  works,  God  blessed,  gave 
especial  honor  among  the  days  of  the  week ;  and  hal- 
lowed, ordained  that  it  should  be  set  apart  as  a  day  on 

*  On  the  construction,  see  Ges.  §  iii,  i,  R  3.  The  versions 
have  the  sixth  day,  which  is  adopted  by  Ball  and  others,  and,  at 
first  sight,  seems  the  preferable  reading  ;  but  the  fact  that  it  relieves 
an  apparent  difficulty  excites  suspicion,  and  the  evidently  close 
relation  between  the  verbs  nb^  {put  an  end  to)  and  H'Z.W  {rest) 
favors  the  present  text.  On  the  meaning  of  nbD>  see  Num.  xvii. 
25/10. 

t  On  the  meaning  of  riDSbtt  {work),  compare  Brown,  Lex. 


I.,  II.]  COMMENTS  115 

which  men  should  not  do  any  work.  See  Ex.  xx.  9  f. 
The  last  clause  preserves  the  distinction  between  the 
work  and  the  works  of  God,  being  properly  rendered,  not, 
as  in  the  T^nglish  Version,  all  his  ivork,  which  God  had 
created  and  viade,  but  strictly,  all  his  ivork,  in  doing 
whicJi  God  had  created,  i.  e.,  acted  as  Creator,  or,  more 
freely,  all  the  creative  "work  that  he  had  done,  /.  e., 
all  the  work  that,  as  Creator,  he  had  done.*  Comp. 
Knobel. 

A  few  words  with  reference  to  this  narrative  as  a 
whole.  Its  value  has  sometimes  been  exaggerated,  and 
sometimes,  especially  in  later  years,  overlooked.  In  the 
first  place,  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that  it  is 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  science  of  the  day.f  If  the 
interpretation  given  above  is  correct,  it  is  clear  that  no 
such  correspondence  can  be  established.  The  modern 
theory  concerning  the  origin  of  the  system  to  which  the 
earth  belongs  may  be  stated  briefly  as  follows  :  — 

The  matter  of  the  entire  system,  so  far  as  can  be 
ascertained,  seems  originally  to  have  existed  in  a  nebu- 
lous form.  From  this  gaseous  mass  were  thrown  off 
rings  of  matter,  which,  when  broken  up  and  compacted 
in  separate  bodies,  became  the  planets  and  their  satellites. 
The  earth,  like  the  rest,  was  at  first  an  incandescent  ball ; 

*  On  the  construction,  see  Joel  ii.  20  f. ;  Ges.  §  114,  2,  R  4.  The 
presence  of  Cnbs  {God)  after  S"13  {create)  sug.ijosts  the  question, 
whether  the  text  did  not  originally  have  the  Perfect  instead  of  the 
Infinitive  of  nti737  {ito)  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  without  either  of 
these  words. 

f  This  is  the  position  of  Guyot  in  his  Creation.  See  also  the 
works  of  Principal  Dawson,  especially  his  Edefi  Lost  and  iron, 
in  which  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  general 
harmony  with  science  and  history  is  maintained.  Dana,  in  the  last 
(1895)  edition  of  his  .Ifanuat  oj' Geotoi^v,  omits  the  chapter  on  Cos- 
mogony with  which  the  book  originally  closed. 


ii6 


THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [I.,  II. 


but  it  gradually  cooled,  and,  as  it  cooled,  the  vapor  by 
which  it  was  surrounded  was  condensed  and  the  globe, 
which  had  meanwhile  become  solid,  at  least  superficially, 
was  thus  more  or  less  covered  with  water.  The  cooling 
process  continued  until,  by  the  consequent  deformation 
of  the  spheroid,  a  distinction  between  regions  of  compara- 
tive elevation  and  depression,  i.  e.,  continents  and  oceans, 
was  established.  Plants  and  animals  made  their  appear- 
ance as  soon  as  their  existence  was  possible  ;  the  simplest 
forms  first,  then,  as  the  ages  passed,  those  of  the  higher 
orders,  until,  finally,  when  the  proper  environment  had 
been  provided,  the  process  of  evolution  in  the  animal  king- 
dom culminated  in  the  production  of  the  human  species. 
The  following  table,  compiled  from  Rice's  revision  of 
Dana's  Text  Book  of  Geology,  shows  (read  upward)  by 
what  stages  the  development  of  life  on  the  earth  is  sup- 
I^osed  to  have  proceeded  :  — 

Quaternary  Period 
Tertiary  Period. 


Cenozoic  Age 


Mesozoic  Age 


The  first  men. 
The     first     placental 
mammals.       Age    of 
mammals. 


Paleozoic  Age 


Cretaceous  Period. 
Jurassic  Period. 

Triassic  Period. 


Carboniferous  Period. 
Devonian  Period. 


Silurian  Period. 


Cambrian  Period. 


Archean  Age 


The  first  angiosperms. 
The  first  birds.  Age 
of  reptiles. 

The  first  mammals. 
Age  of  amphibia. 

The  first  reptiles.  Age 
of  forests. 

The  first  flowering 
plants.  The  first  am- 
phibia. Age  of  fishes. 
The  first  fishes.  The 
first  insects.  The  first 
land  plants. 
The  first  marine  inver- 
tebrates. The  first 
seaweeds. 

Dubious  traces  of  Hfe. 


I.,  II.]  COAfMENTS  117 

The  most  serious  discrepancies  between  this  outline 
and  the  biblical  account  are  the  following  :  — 

/.  In  the  former  the  sun  is  the  centre  from  which  the 
system  is  viewed  and  described  ;  in  the  latter  not  only 
the  sun  and  the  moon,  but  also  the  stars,  are  mere  ad- 
juncts of  the  earth. 

2,  The  current  theory  represents  the  earth,  with  all 
that  belongs  to  it,  as  the  result  of  a  development  requir- 
ing ages  ;  while  the  biblical  narrative  describes  it  as  pro- 
duced by  a  series  of  fiats,  each  of  which  was  at  once 
obeyed,  and  all  of  which  were  uttered  within  the  space  of 
six  literal  days. 

J.  The  order  in  which  the  principal  events  in  the 
course  of  the  earth's  early  history  are  supposed  to  have 
succeeded  one  another  is  not  the  same  as  that  followed 
by  the  sacred  writer  :  — 

a.  If  the  current  theory  is  correct,  there  must  have 
been  light  long  before  there  was  any  water  on  the  surface 
of  the  globe  ;  but,  according  to  the  first  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis, this  is  the  reverse  of  the  true  order. 

b.  The  scientist  claims  that  fishes  appeared  in  the  sea 
as  early  as  plants  on  the  land,  and  that  there  were  other 
water  animals,  as  well  as  marine  plants,  much  earlier ; 
but  the  inspired  author  reports  that  the  vegetation  of  the 
earth  was  created  on  the  third,  while  the  fishes  did  not 
appear  until  the  fifth  day. 

c.  Finally,  the  rocks  testify  that  fishes  existed  ages  be- 
fore the  land  animals  (except  a  few  insects)  and  the  latter 
other  ages  before  the  first  man  ;  but  the  biblical  record 
states  that  the  birds  were  created  on  the  same  day  with 
the  fishes,  and  the  first  human  pair  on  the  same  day  with 
the  rest  of  the  land  animals. 

These  are  serious  divergences,  but  their  significance 
may  be  exaggerated.     They  make  it  impossible  for  the 


Ii8  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [I.,  II. 

intelligent  student  to  accept  the  biblical  account  as  a  cor- 
rect record  of  the  process  of  creation  ;  but  they  do  not 
make  it  necessary  for  him  to  reject  it  as  valueless  from 
the  religious,  or  even  from  the  scientific  standpoint.  In 
the  first  place,  although  the  doctrine  of  God  here  taught 
can  hardly  be  regarded  as  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the 
Christian  believer,  it  was  sufficiently  developed  along 
right  lines  to  furnish  a  basis  for  religion  and  morality  un- 
equalled in  the  period  to  which  it  belongs.  The  author's 
conception  of  creation,  too,  displays  a  philosophic  insight 
that  is  extraordinary.  Indeed,  in  its  essential  features, 
the  unity  of  nature  and  the  gradual  origin  of  things,  it 
harmonizes  so  perfectly  with  the  modern  theory  that  the 
latter  should  be  regarded  as  supplemental,  rather  than 
abrogative,  of  the  former.  See  Ryle,  ii'iV6^,  23  ff.  Finally, 
the  fact  that  the  Sabbath  did  not  originate  exactly  as 
described  does  not  warrant  a  denial  of  its  sanctity ;  for, 
as  in  the  case  of  Sunday,  the  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew 
rest-day  and  the  beneficent  results  of  its  observance  are 
sufficient  to  assure  one  who  has  a  sense  for  the  divine 
that  it  was  a  providential  institution.*  See  Gunkel, 
SC,  118,  170. 

The  author  hitherto  followed  would  naturally  next 
proceed  to  give  a  brief  history  of  the  earliest  generations 
of  the  race.  There  is  such  a  history,  but  it  is  separated 
from  his  account  of  creation  by  the  rest  of  the  second, 
and  the  whole  of  two  more  chapters.     In  other  words, 

*  The  Babylonians  from  the  earliest  times  seem  to  have  regarded 
the  seventh,  the  fourteenth,  the  twenty-first,  and  the  twcnty-ei.sj^hth 
of  each  month  as  unlucky,  and  therefore,  on  these  days,  to  have 
ab.stained,  not  only  from  their  ordinary  pursuits,  but  even  from  the 
presentation  of  sacrifices  to  their  gods.  See  Schrader,  KA  T,  iS  ff. ; 
Boscawen,  BM,  67  f . ;  Toy,  J BL,  1899,  190  ff. 


II.  4]  COMMENTS  119 

the  continuation  of  the  work  from  which  this  account  of 
creation  was  taken  is  to  be  found  in  the  fifth  chapter. 
What  now  follows  is 

(2)  A  Second  Account  (ii.  4-25)  of  creation.  The 
first  thing  that  strikes  one  on  reading  it  is  that  it  begins, 
not  as  the  other  did,  with  the  creation  of  light,  introdu- 
cing life  in  the  order  of  its  manifestations  from  the  low- 
est to  the  highest,  but  with 

(a)  The  Formation  of  Mayi  {vv.  4-7).  4.  To  the 
whole  is  prefixed  a  title,  These  are  the  generations 
of  heaven  and  earth,  such  as  elsewhere  (v.  i  ;  vi. 
9;  X.  i;  etc.)  always  introduces  an  excerpt  from  the 
Priestly  narrative,  to  which  the  preceding  account  be- 
longed. The  fact  that  it  is  here  used  to  introduce  a 
passage  from  the  Yahwistic  narrative  is  explained  by 
supposing,  either  that  it  originally  stood  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  chapter,  and  was  removed  thence,  when 
the  two  narratives  were  combined  (Ilgen),  or  that  it 
originated  with  a  redactor  or  copyist,  by  whom  it  was 
inserted  to  relieve  the  abruptness  of  the  transition  from 
the  first  to  the  second  account  (Holzinger).  The  former 
of  these  suppositions  seems  the  more  attractive,  the  ob- 
jection that  the  author  of  i.  i  ff.  would  not  have  given  it 
this  title  being  met  by  the  fact  that,  in  vi.  9,  a  similar 
title  introduces,  not  a  list  of  Noah's  descendants,  but  a 
history  of  his  times.  See  also  xxv.  19  ;  xxxvii.  2.*  The 
title  is  followed  by  the  brief  temporal  clause,  "when  they 

*  The  idea  that  4a  is  a  subscription  to  the  account  preceding 
(Delitzsch)  must  be  rejected ;  so,  also,  that  it  is  the  title  of  a  miss- 
ino;  chapter  of  the  Priestly  document  (Strack).  The  former  is  for- 
bidden by  the  constant  usage  with  reference  to  the  terms  employed ; 
and  the  latter  by  the  close  connection  between  ii.  3  and  v.  i  ff.,  as 
well  as  the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  the  hypothetical  passage  in 
the  parts  of  the  Priestly  narrative  that  have  been  preserved.  The 
Greek  Version  has.  This  is  the  book  of  the  origin  of,  etc.,  as  in  v.  i, 
and  Ball  adopts  this  reading. 


I20  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [II.  4 

■were  created,  of  which,  as  the  text  now  stands,  the  re- 
mainder of  the  verse  seems  a  superfluous  repetition.  The 
two  clauses,  however,  do  not  belong  together  ;  the  latter, 
in  some  furm,  as  its  phraseology  indicates,  having  origi- 
nally been  connected  with  what  follows.*  Here,  as  in 
the  preceding  account,  there  is  no  disposition  to  pry  into 
the  secrets  of  eternity.  The  story  opens  with  a  picture 
of  the  condition  of  things  at  the  time  when  Yahweh 
(God)  made  earth  and  heaven ;  that  is,  as  they  were 
when  Yahweh  began  his  creative  work.  The  most  inter- 
esting thing  about  this  clause  is  the  appearance  in  it,  for 
the  first  time,  of  Yah-weh,  the  proper  name  of  the  God 
of  the  Hebrews,  for  which  the  English  version  usually 
has  LORD.\  The  meaning  of  the  name  is  disputed, 
but,  according  to  Ex.  iii.  14  f.,  it  seems  to  have  desig- 
nated God  as  the  unchangeable,  in  the  moral  as  well  as 
in  the  metaphysical  sense.f  The  same  passage,  but  Ex. 
vi.  2  f.  more  distinctly,  teaches  that  it  was  not  known  or 

*  The  original  relation  of  4b  to  the  verses  following  is  in  dispute; 
some  exegetes  connecting  it  with  v.  5  (Tuch),  others  with  v.  7 
(Dillmann).  The  latter  construction  seems  too  involved  to  be  the 
one  intended.     See  Driver,  Tenses,  §  124. 

fThe  pronunciation  Jehovah,  unknown  until  1520  A.  D.,  has  no 
warrant  except  in  a  superstitious  custom  in  accordance  with  which 
the  Jews,  to  avoid  the  use  of  the  sacred  name,  pointed  nirf^ 
{VHWH)  with  the  vowels  of  ''iiS  (^"dhofiay),  Lord,  and,  when 
reading  their  Scriptures,  substituted  the  latter  for  the  former.  See 
Bottcher,  Lehrbiich,  §  88.  The  LORD  of  the  English,  like  the 
Kvpios  of  the  Greek  Version,  is  a  relic  of  this  superstition.  When 
the  tetragrammaton  was  preceded  by  "^iTS'  to  avoid  tlie  repetition 
of  the  latter,  the  Hebrews  pointed  the  former  with  the  vowels  of 
D^iibs  i^^lohim),  God;  hence  the  excuse  for  the  GOD  of  the  Eng- 
lish Bible. 

X  On  the  orii,Mn  of  this  name,  see  Baudissin,  SSR,  i.  179  ff . ; 
Frd.  Dclitzscli,  IVLP,  158  ff. ;  Driver,  SB,  i.  i  ff.  ;  Schradcr,  KA  T, 
23  ff. ;  Piepcnbring,  TOT,  99  ff. 


1 1.  4,  5]  COMMENTS  1 2 1 

used  before  the  time  of  Moses.  The  latter  passage  is 
from  the  Priestly  document.  Hence,  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  name  does  not  occur  in  the  first  account  of  crea- 
tion. The  author  of  the  second  account,  having  no  such 
theory,  could,  and  did,  employ  it  freely.  In  this  and  the 
following  chapter,  however,  whenever  YaJiwch  occurs,  a 
later  hand  has,  for  some  unknown  reason,  perhaps  to  in- 
sure the  identification  of  the  Deity  of  the  second  account 
with  that  of  the  first,  inserted  after  it  G-od.*  The  phrase 
earth  and  heaven,  found  elsewhere  only  in  Ps.  cxlviii, 
13,  can  hardly  be  correct ;  but  what  the  original  reading 
was,  it  is  difficult,  if  n(^t  impossible,  to  determine. f 

5.  At  this  time  no  shrub,  no  herb,  of  the  field  ex- 
isted, much  less  any  tree.  The  earth  was  a  waste  ;  yet 
not,  at  least  not  wholly,  a  watery  waste,  as  i.  2  teaches 
that  it  was  in  the  beginning.  J  In  fact,  there  was  a  dearth 
of  water,  because  Yah-weh  had  not  caused  it  to  rain 
upon  the  earth.     The  dependence  of  vegetation  upon 

*  Budde  {BU,  232  ff.)  attributes  the  insertion  of  God  in  these 
chapters  to  the  redactor  who  united  J^  and  J'^,  the  latter  of  which, 
he  thinks,  must  have  avoided  Yahweh  as  far  as  iv.  26.  Comp. 
Holzinger,  EH^  157  ff.  The  resulting  combination  occurs  also 
Ex.  ix.  30  and  nine  times  outside  of  the  Pentateuch. 

t  The  ancient  versions  all  have  heaven  and  earth,  the  Greek 
with  the  article.  In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  the  order  is  the 
same,  but  the  article  is  omitted.  If  this  was  the  original  order,  the 
present  reading  may  have  been  substituted  for  the  other  for  the 
sake  of  variety.  Since,  however,  the  Yahwist  does  not  elsewhere 
in  his  account  of  creation  include  heaven,  it  is  also  possible  that 
the  original  reading  was  earth,  or  the  earth,  vf\\.\\o\it  the  added  term. 

Jin  the  second  Babylonian  account  of  creation  occurs  the  line, 
"  No  plant  had  sprouted,  not  a  tree  was  made  ; " 
but  in  this  case  the  dearth  of  vegetation  is  explained  by  the  fact 
that 

"  The  lands  were  all  and  altogether  sea." 

See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  38  ff.;  Ball,  LE,  19. 


122  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [II.  5-7 

moisture  is  here  expressly  recognized.  There  was,  how- 
ever, another  reason  for  the  barrenness  that  existed ; 
there  -were  no  men  to  till  the  ground.  In  other  words, 
to  the  mind  of  this  author  it  was  necessary  that  men  should 
appear  contemporaneously  with  plants.  Hence,  instead 
of  postponing  the  creation  of  the  former  until  the  earth 
was  otherwise  completely  furnished,  as  did  the  Priestly 
narrator,  he  introduces  them  as  soon  as  the  ground  has 
become  fit  for  cultivation.  The  difference  is  funda- 
mental, making  it  impossible  to  suppose  that  both  ac- 
counts are  the  work  of  one  author. 

6.  The  necessary  moisture  is  provided,  not  by  opening 
the  windows  of  heaven  and  drawing  upon  the  celestial 
reservoirs,  but  by  a  less  direct  and  more  familiar  process. 
A  mist,  naturally  through  the  agency  of  Yahweh,  rose 
from  time  to  time  from  the  earth,*  or  that  part  of  it 
covered  by  hitherto  unrecognized  seas.  The  mist,  having 
risen,  fell  again  in  the  form  of  rain  and  thoroughly  and 
repeatedly  watered  the  whole  face  of  the  ground,  f 
Thus  the  process  by  which  the  earth  has  ever  since  been 
refreshed  was  instituted  and  the  first  requisite  for  the 
existence  of  animal  as  well  as  vegetable  life  provided. 

7.  When  the  ground  had  been  made  cultivable,  Yah- 
weh, proceeding  to  his  second  task,  formed  man,  moulded 
him  as  a  potter  fashions  a  vessel.  J     The  material  out  of 

*  Haupt  {A  OS,  Proc,  1896,  158  ff.)  renders  the  first  half  of  the 
verse,  an  irrigating  canal  overflowed  the  land;  making  *TS  nearly 
the  equivalent  of  edii,  the  Assyrian  iov  Jlood,  and  substituting  br» 
over^  for  "j^.  from.  See  also  the  versions.  However,  it  seems 
clear  that  the  IS  not  on\y  goes  up^  but  supplies  the  rain  without 
which,  according  to  v.  5,  there  can  be  no  vegetation.  See  also  Job 
xxxvi.  27  f. 

t  On  the  uses  of  the  tenses  in  this  verse,  see  Ges.  §§  107,  i,  a, 
and  R  2  ;   i  J2,  3,  a,  o. 

X  For  a  Babylonian  parallel,  see  Jensen,  Kosjnologie,  292  ff. 


1 1 .  7,  8]  '  COMMENTS  1 23 

which  he  formed  him  was  dust  from  the  ground  ;  from 
which  he  afterward  formed  the  beasts  and  the  birds  {v. 
19).*  The  man  thus  produced,  however,  was  at  first  as 
lifeless  as  the  ground  from  which  he  had  been  taken.  It 
was  only  when  Yahweh  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life,  tlie  breath  by  which  life  manifests  itself, 
that  he  became  a  living  creature.  The  term  living 
creature  occurs  three  times  in  the  first  chapter  {vv.  20, 
21,  24).  In  these  and  other  cases  it  is  applied  to  animals, 
exclusive  of  man.  Here  it  is  applied  to  him  as  an  ani- 
mate being,  the  first  that  ever  existed. f  Nothing  is  said 
or  implied  with  reference  to  any  endowments  by  which 
he  might  later  be  distinguished  from  other  living  crea- 
tures. Compare  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  first 
chapter  {vv.  26  ff.),  where  the  superiority  of  man  is  ex- 
pressly taught. 

The  first  account  of  man's  creation  represents  him  as 
immediately  commissioned  to  subdue  the  earth  and  enjoy 
mastery  over  it ;  according  to  this  second  he  was  at 
first  treated  more  tenderly,  being  placed  in 

(b)  TJie  Garden  in  'EdJien  (vv.  8-17).  8.  The  garden, 
as  appears  in  the  course  of  the  story,  was  a  tract  of 
ground  enclosed  (iii.  23)  and  planted  with  trees  of  various 
kinds  (v.  9)  ;  in  other  words,  a  park  or  orchard  like 
those  in  which  the  ancient  rulers  of  the  Orient  delighted. 
See  Frd.  Delitzsch,  IVLP,  95  ff.  ;  Ragozin,  Assyria,  58. 
Such  a  park  was  called  in  Persian  pairidaeza,  whence, 
through  the  Greek,  the  English  Paradise.  The  garden 
of  God,  or   YahweJiy  as  it  is  sometimes  called  in  other 

*  The  author  seems  to  have  intended  to  represent  the  word  CIS? 
man,  as  related  to  rr^TS'  i^round.     Conip.  Brown,  Lex. 

t  In  the  P)ahylonian  document  last  cited,  also,  man  precedes  the 
beast  of  the  tield.     See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  40  f. ;  Ball,  LE,  19. 


124  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [11.8,9 

parts  of  the  Old  Testament  (Eze.  xxviii.  13;  Isa.  li.  3), 
was  located  in  'Edhen.  The  'Edhen  here  meant  is  not 
that  of  Am.  i.  5  (Ehden  ?),  nor  that  of  Isa.  xxxvii.  12 
and  Eze.  xxvii.  23  (Bit-adini).  It  has  been  sought  in 
almost  every  part  of  the  globe.  The  fact  that  the  Hebrew 
of  the  name  signifies  dcligJU  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  9/8  has  led  to 
the  suggestion  that  it  is  a  poetical  designation  for  a  re- 
gion with  whose  real  name  the  author  was  not  acquainted 
(Dillmann).  Another  and  a  more  plausible  theory  is  that 
it  is  derived  from  the  Assyrian  cdmu,  meaning  fieldy 
which  was  sometimes  used  of  the  plain  of  Babylonia  (Frd. 
Delitzsch,  WLP,  79  f.).  There  is  little  to  show  where 
the  author  of  this  verse  located  the  region  he  had  in 
mind.  What  is  said  of  the  rivers  that  flowed  from  it  is 
of  doubtful  value,  since  vv.  10-14  are  clearly  from  an- 
other hand.  It  is  here  described  as  eastward ;  vis.j 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  writer,  Palestine.*  The  only 
passage  that  throws  any  real  light  on  the  subject  is  xi.  2, 
according  to  which  'Edhen  must  have  been,  not  in 
Babylonia  itself,  but  in  the  Arabian  desert ;  since  the 
sacred  author  there  says  that  the  people  joitnieycd  east- 
ward to  reach  the  plain  of  the  land  of  Shin^ar.  This 
location  would  harmonize  with  the  latter  of  the  two 
theories  with  reference  to  the  original  signification  of  the 
name  'Edhen,  the  word  edijin  meaning  desert  as  well  as 
plain.  See  Schrader,  KAT,  26  f.  In  this  garden,  wher- 
ever it  was,  Yahweh  placed  the  single  man  that  he 
had  formed. 

9.  At  the  same  time  he  caused  to  spring  from  the 
ground  of  the  garden  every  tree  pleasant  to  sight, 
to  beautify  the  place  (Eze.  xxxi.  8,  16,  18),  as  well  as 
all  whose  fruit  is  good  for  human  food.  In  addition 
to  all  these  ornamental  and  alimental  trees,  according  to 
*  On  the  word  Cip^,  sec  iii.  24;  xi.  2;  xiii.  11. 


II.  9]  COMMENTS  125 

the  present  text,  there  were  in  the  middle  of  the  gar- 
den   two  others.     One  of  these  was  the  tree  of  life. 

'Ihc  tree  is  evidently  so  called  to  denote  tliat  its  fruit 
possessed  the  property  of  preventing  the  decay  and  dis- 
solution of  the  human  body.  This  appears  from  iii.  22, 
where  Yahweh  is  represented  as  using  language  implying 
that  the  first  pair  might,  by  means  of  the  fruit  of  this 
tree,  have  prolonged  their  lives  indefinitely.  It  is  not 
clear  whether  they  could  have  done  so  by  eating  of  it 
but  once,  or  only  by  resorting  to  it  from  time  to  time,  as 
they  felt  the  need  of  its  rejuvenating  potency.  The  fact 
that  no  reference  is  made  to  any  attempt  on  their  part  to 
ensure  their  immortality  by  partaking  of  it,  after  their 
disobedience  and  before  their  expulsion  from  the  garden, 
indicates  that  they  could  not  thus  have  forestalled  their 
Creator  :  in  other  words,  that  the  fruit  of  this  wonderful 
tree  was  intended  to  heal  actual  wounds  and  cure  in- 
cipient diseases.  The  reason  why  they  had  not  partaken 
of  it,  when  they  were  expelled,  therefore,  is  not  that  they 
knew  nothing  about  it  (Delitzsch),  but  that  they  had 
thus  far  had  no  occasion  to  test  its  efficacy.  See  Prv. 
iii.  18;  xi.  30;  xiii.  12;  xv.  4  ;  comp.  Eze.  xlvii.  12;  Rev. 
xxii.  2.  Such  were  the  nature  and  the  function  of  the 
tree  of  life,  so  far  as  they  can  be  learned  from  the  refer- 
ences to  it  in  this  and  the  following  chapter.  It  is  very 
doubtful,  however,  if  this  tree  had  a  place  in  the  original 
of  the  story  in  which  it  now  appears  ;  and  for  several 
reasons :  (/)  The  idea  which  it  represents  does  not  har- 
monize with  the  teaching  of  the  story  as  a  whole  ;  ac- 
cording to  which  man's  life  was  given  to  him  directly  by 
Yahweh  {v.  7),  and  remained  immediately  dependent  on 
the  will  of  the  Creator  (iii.  19  ;  see  also  Ps.  civ.  29).  {2)  It 
is  completely  ignored  throughout  almost  the  entire  story. 
Thus,  not  only  is  there  no  reference  to  it  in  v.  17,  but  in 


126  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM         [II.  9 

iii.  3  the  language  employed  implies  that  there  was  only 
one  tree  in  the  middle  of  the  garden.  { j)  The  references 
to  it  have  the  marks  of  interpolations.  Thus,  in  the  verse 
under  consideration,  it  obscures  the  author's  meaning,* 
and  iii.  22  and  24  evidently  constitute  a  doublet  to  v.  23. 
These  considerations  seem  to  warrant  one  in  concluding 
that  the  tree  of  life  was  wanting  in  the  original  story,  and 
in  restoring  the  text,  if  necessary,  in  harmony  with  this 
conclusion.!  The  tree  of  life  being  removed,  there 
remains  but  one  tree  in  the  middle  of  the  garden,  the 
tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  The  nature  of 
this  tree,  also,  is  indicated  by  its  name.  It  was  a  tree 
that  possessed  the  property  of  imparting  to  those  who 
did  not  have  it  the  faculty  of  knowing  good  and  evil.  The 
meaning  of  the  terms  good  and  evil  in  this  connection  is 
disputed.  Wellhausen  {GI,  314)  insists  that  the  author 
here  refers,  not  to  a  distinction  in  the  moral  quality  of 
voluntary  actions,  but  to  a  classification  of  things  as 
helpful  or  harmful ;  in  other  words,  that  the  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil  is  only  another  name  for  culture,  civiliza- 
tion. Budde  {BU,  65  ff.)  objects  (/)  that,  granting  that 
these  terms  originally  had  a  purely  utilitarian  significa- 
tion, when  the  Yahwistic  narrative  was  written,  they  had 
evidently  acquired  a  moral  application  (Am.  v.  14  f.) 
which  finally  appears  in  expressions  similar  to,  or  identical 

*  The  original  author  would  certainly  have  introduced  it  after 
the  phrase  in  the  tniddle  of  the  garden,  and  thus  have  made  clear 
where  the  second  tree  was  located. 

t  The  required  changes,  which  will  be  introduced  in  the  proi)cr 
connections,  are  the  following:  In  9b,  for  the  present  text,  read 
a7id^  in  the  middle  of  the  garden,  the  tree  of  knoiuledge  of  good  and 
evil ;  in  17a,  for  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  read,  as  in  iii.  3,  that 
is  in  the  middle  of  the  garden  ;  and  omit  iii.  22  and  24.  For  an 
exhaustive  discussion  of  the  text,  sec  Budde,  BU,  4C  ff. ;  conip. 
Bacon,  GG,  104. 


1 1 .  9,  I  o]  COMMENTS  1 27 

with,  the  one  in  ciucstion  (2  Sam.  xiv.  17  ;  i  Kgs.  iii.  9)  ; 
and  {2)  that,  in  the  story  of  the  Fall,  the  application  to 
moral  qualities  is  proven  by  the  fact,  that  the  hrst  know- 
ledge actually  acquired  by  the  first  pair  was  that  of  their 
own  nakedness.  A  still  more  convincing  consideration 
is  (j)  that,  in  the  threat  attached  to  the  prohibition  of 
the  tree  in  question,  the  capacity  to  distinguish  between 
things  advantageous  and  disadvantageous  is  taken  for 
granted.  What  would  have  been  the  use  of  the  declara- 
tion, thou  sJialt  die  {v.  17),  if  he  to  whom  the  words  were 
addressed  had  no  notion  of  the  desirable  as  distinguished 
from  the  undesirable  ?  The  question,  how  the  know- 
ledge thus  described  was  imparted  is  easily  answered.  It 
resided  in  the  fruit  of  the  tree ;  at  any  rate,  it  could  be 
acquired  by  eating  the  fruit  (iii.  7),  and  there  is  nothing 
to  indicate  that,  to  the  mind  of  the  author,  it  could  be 
acquired  in  any  other  way.  The  theory  that,  if  the  first 
pair  had  not  eaten  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  the  tree  would 
have  had  any  influence  upon  their  moral  condition  (De- 
litzsch)  is  as  gratuitous  as  to  suppose  that  they  could 
have  satisfied  their  hunger  by  sitting  in  the  shadow  of 
the  other  trees  of  the  garden. 

10.  The  story  of  creation  is  here  interrupted  by  a 
parenthetical  description  of  a  remarkable  river.  No 
name  is  given  to  it.  It  is  introduced  by  the  simple  state- 
ment that  it  went  forth,  in  a  continuous  flow,  from 
'Edhen,  or,  rather,  an  unknown  point  in  the  region  thus 
designated.  No  reference  is  made  to  the  creation  of  this 
stream  ;  but  the  author  describes  it  as  "watering  the 
garden,  and  he  evidently  thought  of  it  as  provided  for 
that  purpose.  As  it  issued  from  the  garden  it  branched 
and  became  four  sources,  or  the  source  of  four  tliverg- 
ing  streams.  It  must  therefore  have  been  comparatively 
large. 


128  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [II.  ii 

II.  The  first  of  the  streams  to  which  the  river  of 
'Edhen  gave  rise  is  called  Pishon.  The  opinions  with 
reference  to  its  identity  are  numerous  and  conflicting. 
The  earliest,  which  still  is  a  favorite  in  some  quarters,  is 
that  the  author  had  in  mind  one  of  the  rivers  of  India  : 
c.  g.y  the  Ganges  (Josephus)  or  the  Indus  (Dillmann). 
Others  seek  it  near  the  head-waters  of  the  Tigris  and  the 
Euphrates,  and  find  it  in  the  Phasis  (Brugsch),  the  Kyros 
(Keil),  or  the  Araxes  (von  Raumer).  Finally,  those  who 
locate  the  garden  of  'Edhen  in  southern  Babylonia  iden- 
tify the  Pishon  with  one  of  the  mouths  of  the  Shatt  el- 
Arab  (Calvin),  the  Karun  (Pressel),  or  a  canal  fed  by  the 
Euphrates.  The  last  is  the  view  maintained  by  Frd.  De- 
litzsch  ( WLPy  45  ff.),  who  identifies  it  with  a  canal,  the 
Pallakopas,  which  left  the  Euphrates  below  Babylon,  and, 
after  flowing  through  the  Chaldean  lakes  and  past  the 
ancient  city  of  'Ur,  emptied  into  the  Persian  Gulf  some 
distance  southwest  of  the  mouth  of  the  main  stream,  and 
still  farther  from  that  of  the  Tigris,  which  at  that  time 
entered  the  Gulf  by  a  separate  channel.  Before  attempt- 
ing to  decide  which,  if  any,  of  these  views  is  correct,  it 
is  necessary  to  locate  the  land  of  Hawilah,*  of  which 
the  Pishon  is  said  to  have  formed  a  boundary.  The 
name  occurs  seven  times  (Gen.  ii.  ii  ;  x.  7,  29  ;  xxv. 
18  ;  I  Sam.  xv.  7  ;  i  Chr.  i.  9,  23)  in  the  Old  Testament. 
In  xxv.  18  it  is  given  to  the  eastern  limit  of  the  territory 
occupied  by  the  descendants  of  Ishmael,  and,  therefore, 
as  P>d.  Delitzsch  (JVLP,  58)  contends,  must  have  been 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  upper  end  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  So, 
also,  in  i  Sam.  xv.  7.  In  Gen.  x.  7  Hawilah  is  a  son  of 
Kush,  or  a  Hamite  tribe,  while  in  v.  29  the  same  name  is 
given  to  a  son  of  Yoktan,  the  second  son  of  T£bher,  from 
whom  the  Hebrews  also  were  descended.  It  is  not 
*  For  nVinn  read  nb^'lil  with  the  Samaritans. 


11.11,12]  COMMENTS  1 29 

necessary,  in  this  connection,  to  decide  whether  the 
Hawilah  of  the  latter  passage  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
former,  or  a  different  tribe  or  country  ;  or,  if  they  are 
the  same,  whether  they  are  identically  located.  It  is 
clear  that  chapter  x.  is  a  compilation,  that  vv.  7  and  29 
are  by  different  authors,  and  that,  since  the  latter  only 
is  from  the  same  document  as  the  second  account  of 
creation,  and  therefore  at  least  possibly  by  the  same 
hand,  it  alone  can  be  given  any  weight  in  determining 
where  the  author  of  ii.  10-14  located  Hawilah.  But 
the  sons  of  Yoktan,  so  far  as  their  identity  can  be  dis- 
covered, were  tribes  or  regions  of  Arabia.  Hence  the 
probability  is  that  Hawilah  also,  according  to  the  author 
of  X.  29,  was  somewhere  in  that  country.  Glaser  {SGA, 
ii.  341  ff.)  has  undertaken  to  show,  not  only  that  this 
interpretation  is  correct,  but  that  the  Pishon  was  Wady 
ed-Dawasir,  one  of  the  two  great  central  wadies  of  the 
Arabian  peninsula,  a  branch  of  which  was  formerly 
called  Wady  Faisan.  See  also  Hommel,  AHT,  313  ff. 
If,  however,  as  seems  probable,  the  Mesha  of  x.  30  is  the 
Mash  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  (Frd,  Delitzsch,  IIXP, 
242  f.),  I.  c,  the  great  Syro-Arabian  desert,  or  the  north- 
western part  of  it,  Delitzsch's  view,  that  the  Pishon  was 
a  branch  of  the  Euphrates,  seems  preferable.  That  this 
region  produced  gold  appears  from  the  fact  that  among 
the  things  brought  as  tribute  to  Tiglath-pileser  III.  by 
the  king  of  Bit-yakin  was  "  gold,  the  dust  of  his  land." 
See  Schrader,  K7y\  ii.  14  f. 

12.  Of  the  gold  of  that* land  the  author  says  that  it 
was  very  f  good.  Two  other  products  of  Hawilah  are  men- 

*  On  the  form  SIH   sec  Ges.  §  32,  R  6.     The  Samaritans  read 

f  This  is  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate,  as  well  as  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch.     The  Massoretic  text  seems  to  have  lost  the  adverb. 


130  THE  WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM    [II.  12,  13 

tioned.  The  word  for  the  first  has  sometimes  been  ren- 
dered pearl  (Bochart).  The  common  opinion  is  that  it 
is  the  name  for  bdellium,  a  transparent,  aromatic  gum, 
yellow  in  color,  which,  according  to  Pliny  {HN,  xii.  35), 
was  found  in  Arabia,  as  well  as  in  India,  Media,  and 
Babylonia.  See  Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  16  ;  Enc.  Bib.,  art. 
Bdellium  ;  comp.  Die.  Bib.  The  third  thing  mentioned 
is  a  precious  stone  (Job  xxviii.  16),  found  among  the 
ornaments  of  the  high  priest's  ephod  (Ex.  xxviii.  9,  20). 
It  is  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  the  Assyrian  satntUy 
the  principal  product  of  the  Babylonian  province  of 
Meluha  (Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  60,  131).  There  are 
various  opinions  respecting  its  precise  nature,  but  the 
oriental  authorities  identify  it  with  the  beryl,  and  this 
view  is  favored  by  many  modern  exegetes.  See  Enc. 
Bib.,  art.  Beryl. 

13.  The  identity  of  the  Gihon,  also,  the  second  of  the 
four  streams  into  which  the  river  of  'Edhen  branched,  is 
disputed.  The  ancients  identified  it  with  the  Nile  (Jose- 
phus),  and  their  opinion  in  its  various  modifications  still 
has  its  adherents  (Dillmann).  Others  prefer  the  Oxus 
(Rosenmiiller),  which  among  Mohammedans  has  some- 
times received  the  name  Jeihun.  Those  who  locate  Para- 
dise in  Armenia  identify  the  Gihon  with  the  Araxes 
(Brugsch),  while  those  who  find  it  in  Babylonia  prefer 
'one  of  the  mouths  of  the  Shatt  el-Arab  (Calvin),  the 
Kercha  (Pressel),  or  a  canal  in  that  region.  According 
to  Frd.  Delitzsch  it  was  the  Shatt  en-Nil,  a  canal  that 
left  the  luiphrates  at  Babylon,  one  of  the  branches  of 
which  emptied  into  the  Tigris,  while  the  other,  after 
passing  the  ancient  cities  of  Nippur  and  Uruk,  finally 
reentered  the  Euphrates  not  far  from  'Ur  {WLP,  loi.), 
Glaser  (SGA,  ii.  354  f.)  identifies  it  with  wady  er-Rumma, 
formerly  Jaihan,  in   Northern  Arabia.     Mere,  again,  the 


II.  13]  COMMENTS  131 

author  comes  to  the  assistance  of  the  reader  hy  dcscrib- 
'wY^  the  river  meant  as  the  one  that  boundeth  the 
•whole  land  of  Kush.  Now  Kush,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, usually  denotes  the  country  south  of  Egypt,  the 
Ethiopia  of  classical  geography,  or  some  part  of  it,  and 
this  is  the  interpretation  that  has  always  been  given  to 
it  in  X.  6  f.  In  x.  8  ff.,  however,  it  cannot  be  so  inter- 
preted, but  must  at  least  include  a  part  of  Babylonia, 
where  the  cities  mentioned  in  v.  10  were  situated  ;  and 
that  passage,  being  of  Yahwistic  origin,  doubtless  indi- 
cates what  is  meant  in  this  connection.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  Kush  is  here  the  name  of  a  part,  perhaps 
the  whole,  of  Babylonia.*  This  being  the  case,  it  is  fur- 
ther probable,  that  the  name  is  but  another  form  of  the 
Assyrian  KasJi,  a  designation  for  a  people  whose  earliest 
known  home  was  on  the  border  of  Media,  between  As- 
syria proper  and  'Elam,t  but  who  finally  overran  both 
*Elam  and  Babylonia,  the  latter  of  which  they  ruled  for 
a  period  of  at  least  four  hundred  years.  :j:  The  river  in 
question,  therefore,  must  have  been  a  branch  of  the 
Euphrates  that  bounded  one  of  these  regions  ;  and  the 
only  known  stream  that  fulfils  these  conditions  seems 
to  be  the  ancient  canal  identified  with  the  Arahtu  of  the 

*  The  Greek  Version  here  has  Ethiopia,  but  in  chapter  x.  a 
transliteration. 

t  Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  32.  See  also  McCurdy,  HPM,\.  142  ff. 
Hommel  {Die.  Bib..,  art.  Babylonia)  thinks  that  the  Kasshites  of 
lialjylonia  came  from  'Elam,  Kash  being  an  ancient  name  for  the 
latter  country. 

X  This  was  the  duration  of  the  Kasshite  supremacy  according  to 
Pciser(Z^/,  vi.  264 ff.),  who  fixes  its  limits  at  1579  and  riSo  n.  c. 
See  also  Hommel  Die.  Bib..,  art.  Babylonia.  According  to  Frd. 
Delitzsch  (Miirdter-Delitzsch,  GBA,  Appendix)  it  was  considerai)ly 
greater,  —  1 726-1 150  H.  c,  —  and  according  to  Meyer  {GA,  i.  329) 
considerably  less,  —  1502-1257  b.  c. 


132  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [II.  13,  14 

Assyrian  inscriptions  and  the  more  modern  Shatt  en-Nil, 
whose  pre-Shemitic  name,  according  to  Frd.  DeUtzsch 
(IVLP,  75  f.),  was  Kahanna  or  Guhanna.* 

14.  The  name  of  the  third  river  is  Hiddekel. 
This  is  the  Hebrew  form  of  Idiklaty  the  name  by  which 
the  Assyrians  called  the  Tigris.  It  is  described  as  flow- 
ing east  of  'Asshur.  If  by  'Asshur  were  meant  the  city 
of  that  name,  the  earliest  capital  of  Assyria,  the  state- 
ment would  be  perfectly  correct,  for  it  lay  on  the  west 
bank  of  the  Tigris,  on  the  site  of  the  modern  village  of 
Kalah  Shergat.  Since,  however,  the  rivers  heretofore 
mentioned  were  described  in  their  relation  to  the  coun- 
tries that  they  bounded,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  in 
this  instance  also  the  country,  and  not  the  city,  'Asshur 
is  intended.  This  being  the  case,  the  author  seems  to  be 
at  fault,  since  Assyria  lay  on  both  sides  of  the  Tigris, 
and  the  great  cities,  Kalah,  Nineweh,  and  Dur-sharruken, 
were  east  of  it.f  Still,  the  Tigris  did  flow  east  of  the 
better  known  part  of  the  Assyrian  empire.  A  further 
difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  Tigris  is  here  rep- 
resented as  a  branch  of  the  same  great  stream  as  the 
fourth  river,  the  Perath,  /.  r.,  the  Euphrates.  This, 
also,  taken  in  a  strict  sense  is  incorrect ;  for,  although 
the  two  rise  not  far  from  each  other,  and  flow  only  a  few 
miles  apart  for  some  distance  below  the  site  of  Sippara, 
they  unite  only  after  they  have  passed  beyond  the  ancient 
limits  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  which  they  once  entered  by 

*  How  it  came  to  be  called  the  Nile  is  unknown.  See  Frd. 
Dclitzsch,  WL1\  70  f. 

t  Dillmann  and  others  prefer  to  translate  ntl"^^.^  in  front  of; 
but  this  rendering  is  not  supported  by  any  of  the  otlier  passages  in 
which  the  word  is  used  (iv.  16;  i  Sam.  xiii.  5;  Eze.  xxxix.  11). 
Moreover,  it  is  no  improvement;  since  a  river  that  flows  throuoli  a 
country  can  with  no  greater  propriety  be  said  to  flow  in  front  of 
than  east  of\t. 


II.  14,  15]  COMMENTS  133 

separate  channels  (Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  173  ff.).  The 
only  connectiun  between  them  in  early  times  was  that 
made  by  canals  such  as  the  left  branch  of  the  Shatt  en- 
Nil  already  mentioned.  It  seems  necessary,  therefore, 
to  conclude,  either  that  the  author  of  vv.  10-14  lacked 
exact  knowledge  of  Babylonia  and  its  great  rivers,  or  that 
he  intended  to  represent  the  Tigris  as,  through  the  canal 
or  canals  connecting  it  with  the  Euphrates,  a  branch  of 
the  latter.  The  second  of  these  suppositions  is  the  more 
probable. 

The  idea  that  the  river  flowing  forth  from  'Edhen  was 
the  Euphrates  is  by  no  means  modern.  It  has  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Talmud  and  other  Jewish  authorities  (Frd. 
Delitzsch,  IVLP,  143  f.).  According  to  Tosaphoth  "the 
river  of  Paradise,  before  it  begins  to  divide  into  four 
sources,  is  the  Euphrates.  When  it  divides,  the  others 
branch  from  it  on  either  side,  but  it  flows  straight  onward 
and  forms  in  its  course  the  fourth."  *  If  this  was  the 
idea  of  the  author  of  these  verses,  he  cannot  have  located 
the  garden  in  Arabia,  but  must  have  identified  it  with 
the  country  about  Babylon,  a  region  which  was  called, 
in  the  language  of  its  non-Shemitic  inhabitants,  Kar- 
duniash,  "the  garden  of  the  Lord  of  the  lands."  (Frd. 
Delitzsch,  IVLP,  64  ff.,  133  ff . ;  McCurdy,  NPM,  i. 
124  f.,  133  ;  comp.  Die.  Bid.,  art.  Eden;  Jensen,  Kosmo- 
logie,  507  ff.) 

15.  Having  described  the  river  by  which  the  garden 
was  watered,  the  author  of  the  description  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  repeat  somewhat  to  restore  the  connection.  He 
states  once  more,  what  has  already  been  narrated  of  the 
man  in  v.  8,  that  Yahweh  placed  him  in  the  garden. 

*  The  Babylonians  represented  the  Tif:^ris  and  the  Euphrates 
as  the  first  rivers  created.  See  Schradcr,  KB,  vi.  i,  4of. ;  Ball, 
LE,  19. 


134  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [II.  15-17 

He,  however,  describes  the  place,  not  as  tJic  garden  in^ 
but  as  the  garden  of  'Edhen.  He  also  states  expressly 
that,  as  is  implied  in  the  connection  of  v.  8  with  v.  5,  the 
man  was  placed  in  the  garden  to  till  it.  He  adds  a  touch 
that  hardly  harmonizes  with  the  original  story,  when  he 
says  that  another  object  was,  that  he  might  guard  it; 
for  as  yet  he  is  the  only  living  creature  in  existence,  and 
the  animals,  when  created,  are  to  be  his  companions,  and 
not  his  enemies.*     Comp.  Jub.  iii.  13. 

i6f.  The  orio^inal  story  now  proceeds  with  the  state- 
ment that  Yahweh,  having  created  the  trees  as  described 
in  V.  9,  charged  the  man  with  reference  to  them.  The 
expression  all  the  trees  of  the  garden,  of  course,  means 
all  those  described  in  v.  9  as  good  for  food ;  or  all  but 
one,  for  one  is  expressly  excepted.  The  present  text 
describes  it  as  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,  but  this  can  hardly  be  correct :  for,  (/)  there  being 
but  one  magical  tree,  it  is  more  natural  that  it  should  be 
described  by  its  location  than  by  its  properties ;  {2)  it  is 
so  described  in  iii.  3  ;  (j)  the  language  of  iii.  4  f.  implies 
that  the  first  pair  were  ignorant  of  its  peculiar  properties; 
and  (^)  the  nature  of  the  story  requires  that  they  should 
be  so  represented.  See  iii.  10  f.f  Yahweh,  therefore, 
must  have  forbidden  the  first  man  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of 
the  tree  in  the  middle  of  the  garden,  without  informing 
him  what  its  effect  would  be  and  thus  suggesting  an  in- 
ducement to  disobedience.  The  reason  for  the  prohibition 
has  generally  been  overlooked.  One  suggestion  is,  that 
possibly  it  was  only  a  temporary  regulation  ;  that  perhaps 

*  Note  also  that  the  word  ^^y^  i^ardcti,  is  here  feminine,  but  else- 
where (i  Kgs.  xxi.  2;  Isa.  Iviii.  11  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  12;  Cnt.  iv.  12,  16) 
masculine. 

t  The  change  in  the  text  was  made,  and  required,  on  account  of 
the  introduction  of  the  tree  of  life  in  v.  9. 


II.  17]  COMMENTS  135 

Yahweh  would  finally  have  permitted  man  to  partake  of 
the  tree,  if  he  had  remained  obedient,  and  secured  him 
against  evil  consequences  (Budde,  BU,  72).  The  favorite 
opinion,  however,  is  that,  had  the  temptation  been  resisted, 
the  result  would  have  been  the  development  in  man,  thus 
voluntarily  choosing  good,  of  a  knowledge  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  it  and  its  opposite  (Dillmann).  Both  of 
these  views  are  clearly  mistaken.  The  author  evidently 
means  to  teach  that  man,  when  created,  lacked  the  power 
to  make  for  himself  moral  distinctions,  and  that  Yahweh, 
although  he  made  disappointment  possible,  intended  that 
he  should  remain  in  this  childlike  condition  (Piepen- 
bring,  TOT^  193  f.).  To  the  further  question,  why  Yah- 
weh was  unwilling  that  man  should  possess  the  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil,  also,  there  have  been  various  answers. 
It  is  not  clear  that  this  author  thought  of  the  Creator  as 
moved  by  jealousy  in  the  matter.  Neither  iii.  5,  where 
the  serpent  is  the  speaker,  nor  iii.  22,  which  is  by  an- 
other hand,  can  be  cited  in  support  of  such  a  supposition. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  view  of  xi.  6,  it  is  hardly  safe  to 
say  that  he  wished  to  represent  the  Deity  as  acting  from 
purely  benevolent  motives.  It  is  more  probable  that,  in 
his  mind,  the  ideal,  and  therefore  the  original,  relation  of 
man  to  God  was  one  of  absolute  dependence,  and  that 
the  latter,  in  denying  to  the  former  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  was  at  the  same  time  asserting  his  pre- 
rogative as  Creator  and  attempting  to  safeguard  the 
interests  of  his  creature.*  The  prohibition  was  accom- 
panied by  a  solemn  warning.  The  words  witli  which 
this  is  introduced,  in  the' day  thou  eatest  from  it, 
might  mean  that  the  i)enalty  threatened  would  immedi- 
ately follow  the  offence  (Gunkel),  but  the  sequel  shows 

*  On  the  jealousy  attributed  to  their  gods  by  other  peoples,  see 
Le  norm  ant,  BH^  104  If. 


136  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [II.  17-19 

that  they  are  to  be  interpreted  as  equivalent  to  if  thoic 
eatest  tJiereof ;  so  that  the  whole  clause  might  be  freely 
rendered,  So  surely  as  thou  catcst  thereof  thou  shalt 
die,  the  emphasis  being  not  on  the  date,  so  much  as  on 
the  certainty,  of  the  infliction.  The  serpent,  in  iii.  4, 
makes  the  ambiguity  of  this  statement  an  excuse  for  a 
falsehood. 

The  natural  question,  how  long  the  first  man  remained 
the  solitary  inhabitant  of  the  earth,  is  left  unanswered. 
The  author  can  hardly  have  thought  it  a  great  length  of 
time,  for  he  proceeds  at  once  to  describe 

(c)  The  Advent  of  Woman  {vv.  18-25).  18.  The 
account  of  her  creation  is  introduced  by  a  confession  in 
which  Yahweh  is  naively  represented  as,  so  to  speak, 
feeling  his  way  in  his  work.  He  says.  It  is  not  good  for 
the  man  to  be  alone.  Compare  the  satisfaction  with 
which,  in  the  first  chapter,  God  is  described  as  regarding 
the  successive  results  of  his  creative  activity,  and  the 
very  good  with  which  he  finally  characterizes  the  whole. 
On  discovering  that  the  provisions  made  for  his  creature 
are  inadequate,  Yahweh  resolves  to  supply  the  deficiency. 
He  says,  I  will  make  *  him  a  helper,  a  sharer  in  his 
simple  duties  and  their  abundant  rewards.  This  helper 
is  to  be  one  suited  to  him.  Not  his  like,  —  it  would 
have  been  a  simple  matter  to  have  duplicated  him,  — 
but  a  second  of  his  species  in  whom  he  will  find  himself 
complete. 

19.    In  pursuance  of  his  purpose  Yahweh  further  f 

*  The  Greek  and  the  Latin  Version  have  Let  us  make. 

t  The  word  rendered  further  ("T137),  which,  though  not  in  the 
Massorctic  text,  is  found  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and  its 
equivalent  in  the  Greek  Version,  beyond  doubt  forbids  a  rendering 
of  the  verb  by  which  it  is  made  to  appear  that  here,  as  in  chapter  i., 


II.  iQ,  2o]  COMMENTS  137 

formed  from  the  ground,  just  as  he  had  the  man,  three  * 
classes  of  animals.  The  text  does  not  say  here,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  man,  that  life  was  imparted  to  the  lifeless  clay 
by  the  breath  of  Yahweh,  but  this  was  undoubtedly  the 
author's  idea.  See  Ps.  civ.  29.  The  fish  of  the  sea  arc 
ignored  or  overlooked,  as  in  i.  30.  The  newly  created 
animals  Yahweh  brought  to  the  man  to  see  what  he 
would  call  them ;  gave  him  an  opportunity  to  note 
their  characteristics  and  put  his  ideas  of  them  into  appro- 
priate names.  In  the  first  account  it  is  God  himself 
who  gives  names  to  his  creatures  as  they  are  brought 
into  existence.  Note  that  the  man,  even  before  he  had 
a  companion,  according  to  the  author,  had  a  perfect  com- 
mand of  the  original  language  of  the  race.  The  result 
was,  that  whatsoever  the  man  called  each,  lit.,  zV,! 
that  was,  became  and  still  remains,  its  name.  J 

20.  One  after  another  all  the  cattle,  all  sj  the  birds 
of  heaven,  and  all  the  beasts  of  the  field,  the  last 
being  the  so-called  wild  animals  (comp.  v.  9),  passed  in 
procession  before  the  man.  As  he  gave  them  their 
names  he  sought  among  them  the  companion  he  needed, 

the  Creator  had  formed  the  animals  before  man  existed.  Comp. 
Murphy. 

*  The  item  all  the  cattle  is  to  be  supplied  from  v.  20.  Before 
n^n  b^  insert  also,  with  the  Samaritans,  nS,  the  sign  of  the  ac- 
cusative. 

t  The  phrase  a  living  creature,  which  follows  in  the  Massoretic 
text,  is  without  doubt  a  gloss  introduced  to  prevent  the  possibility 
of  a  mistake  with  reference  to  the  antecedent  of  the  pronominal 
suffix. 

X  The  Hebrew  idea  of  the  relation  of  names  to  the  persons  or 
things  desio^ated  thereby  is  illustrated  in  the  identification  by  them 
of  the  divine  name  with  the  Deity  himself.  See  Isa.  xxix.  23;  1.  10; 
also  Piepenbring,  TOT,  141  f. 

§  The  word  all,  which  is  wanting  in  the  Massoretic  text,  is  sup- 
plied from  the  Greek  Version. 


138  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [II.  19-22 

but  in  vain  ;  for  himself  the  man,  \\\.  for  the*  man  Jie,\ 
found  not  a  helper  suited  to  him. 

21.  Tlic  Creator,  finding  that  none  of  the  creatures  he 
had  produced  from  the  ground  was  satisfactory,  deter- 
mined upon  the  use  of  a  different  material  for  the  desired 
helper.  In  pursuance  of  his  plan  he  threw  the  man  into 
a  stupor,  and,  when  the  latter  fell  asleep,  removed  one 
of  his  ribs  ;  about  the  only  bone  that  could  be  removed 
without  mutilating  the  body. J  In  its  place  §  he  put 
flesh. 

22.  This  rib  Yahweh  fashioned,  lit.  built ^  ||  into  a 

*  The  Massoretes,  not  only  here,  but  in  iii.  17  and  21,  omit  the 
article  ;  but,  since  in  this  and  the  following  chapter,  wherever  the 
definiteness  or  indehniteness  of  the  noun  can  be  determined  from 
the  consonantal  text,  the  article  is  used,  it  is  more  than  prohable 
that  in  these  cases  the  proper  reading  is  not  'CTW^tfor  'Adham,  or 

for  a  man  (Delitzsch),  but  U^'^.for  the  man,  i.  e.,  the  first  man. 

t  Two  other  renderings  have  been  suggested:  one  found  not,  or 
there  was  not  found,  as  in  the  Greek  and  (Revised)  English  ver- 
sions ;  and  he  (Yahweh)  found  not  (Dillmann).  Both  of  them, 
however,  require  a  change  of  subject  which  is  awkward  and  improb- 
able.    Olshausen  suggests  the  reading  3"TSm  for  msbv 

X  The  word  vb!!  also  means  side.  In  fact,  this  is  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  most  frequently  found.  See  Ex.  xxv.  12,  14,  etc.  Hence 
some  have  insisted  on  rendering  it  so  in  this  connection.  See  Ber. 
Rab.  75  f. ;  also  Lenormant  {BH,  60  ff.),  who  cites  Persian  and  Indian 
legends  in  support  of  his  interpretation.  This,  however,  cannot 
have  been  the  thought  of  the  author,  since'^ie  would  not  have  repre- 
sented the  first  being  created  as  wanting  what  he  already  possessed. 
It  should  also  be  noted,  that  the  Assyrian  equivalent  of  377!^'  situ, 
means  rib  as  well  as  side. 

§  On  n^nnn.  lit.  under  it,  see  Ges.  §  103,  i,  R  3.  The  Samari- 
tans have  the  regular  form  n^nnn- 

II  There  is  a  peculiar  fitness  in  the  use  of  HDS'  build,  in  this  con- 
nection, arising  from  the  fact  that  vb!i  is  sometimes  found  in  the 
sense  of  board.     See  i  Kgs.  vi.  15. 


11.22-24]  COMMENTS  i39 

woman,  and  brought  her  to  the  man,  to  see  if   he 

would  recognize  in  her  the  needed  companion. 

23.  Yiihweh  must  at  the  same  time  have  explained 
the  origin  of  the  woman.  The  language  in  which  the 
man  welcomed  her  imjilies  such  an  explanation  :  This, 
now,  unlike  all  the  previous  ]:)roducts  of  the  divine  skill, 
is  one  of  my  bones  and  a  part  of  my  flesh  ;  lit.  bone 
of  my  bones  and  flesJi  of  my  flesh ;  part  and  parcel  of 
myself.  He  at  once  proceeds  to  name  her,  as  he  had 
previously  named  the  animals  presented  to  him.  He 
calls  her  woman,  and  gives  as  a  reason  for  so  naming 
her,  that  she  was  taken*  from  herf  man,  her  hus- 
band, f 

24.  Therefore,  because  the  first  wife  was  literally, 
according  to  this  account,  a  part  of  her  husband.  The 
words  that  follow  are  probably  the  words  of  the  first 
man,  not,  like  x.  9b,  an  explanation  interjected  by  the 
narrator  (Dillmann).  Comp.  Mat.  xix.  5.  Hence  they 
are  to  be  rendered  shall,  and  not  doth  a  man  leave  his 
father  and  his  mother,  loose  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
the  ties  by  which  he  is  bound  to  them,  and  cleave,  as 
to  no  other,  to  his  wife.  See  Ps.  xlv.  i  i/io.  Thus  the 
two  §  are  to  become  one  flesh,  their  aims  and  interests 
thenceforth  being  identical.  This  verse,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  iii.  16,  indicates  that  the  author  regarded 

*  On  the  form  nnf^b  see  Ges.  §  52,  i,  R. 

f  This  is  the  Greek  and  the  Samaritan  reading;  the  Massoretic 
text  omits  the  pronominal  suffix. 

\  The  writer  seems  to  have  derived  the  Hebrew  word  for  ivo/ian, 
nti7S'  from  IT'-Sj  ?nan ;  and  this  was  formerly  supposed  to  be  the 
correct  derivation.  See,  however,  Brown,  Lex.  35b  ;  Frd.  Delitzsch, 
HA,  9. 

§  This  is  the  Greek,  the  Syriac,  and  the  Vulgate  reading.  The 
Massoretic  text  omits  CH'^DLl?'  t/icy  two;  the  Samaritan  has  n^m 
Cn'^itr'*:'  a7id  there  shall  he  from  the  two  of  them. 


140  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [11.24,25 

the  equality  of  the  husband  and  the  wife  as  the  ideal  re- 
lation between  them,  but  it  does  not  so  clearly  as  some 
have  supposed  (Dillmann)  imply  that  he  disapproved  of 
polygamy.     See  iv.  19. 

25.  The  account  closes  with  a  statement  in  harmony 
with  the  conception,  evidently  cherished  by  the  author, 
that  the  first  representatives  of  the  human  race  were 
as  immature,  and  therefore  as  irresponsible,  as  children. 
Though  they  were  both  naked,*  they  felt  no  shame  ; 
saw  no  more  harm  in  exposing  their  persons  to  each  other 
than  as  if  they  had  been  infants. 

In  the  course  of  the  comments  on  this  second  account 
of  creation  sufficient  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  varia- 
tions between  it  and  the  first  to  show  that  the  two  can- 
not be  the  work  of  the  same  author.  They  diverge,  as 
is  now  generally  conceded,  both  in  style  and,  in  large 
measure,  in  content.  There  is,  however,  a  fundamental 
unity  between  them.  They  both,  so  far  as  they  go, 
trace  the  origin  of  all  things  to  the  will  of  an  intelligent 
Creator ;  and  they  both  make  man  the  chief  of  God's 
creatures  and  the  lord  of  the  earth  and  everything  in  it. 
The  difference  between  them,  so  far  as  these  fundamen- 
tals are  concerned,  is  merely  a  difference  in  the  degree 
of  clearness  with  which  the  common  ideas  are  conceived 
and  taught.  When  the  second  account  was  written,  they 
were  rather  implied  than  expressed ;  by  the  time  the  first 
appeared  they  had  become  recognized  doctrines  of  the 
Jewish  church. 

The  condition  and  surroundings  of  the  first  pair,  ac- 
cording to  the  Yahwist,  were  perfect.    The  garden  yielded 
all  that  they  needed  to  satisfy  their  physical  wants.    The 
♦  On  CDinr*  naked,  see  Gcs.  §  9,  (2)  R. 


III.  I]  COMMENTS  141 

exertion  required  of  them  was  enough  to  give  zest  to 
existence,  but  too  little  to  be  called  labor.  They  lived 
at  peace  with  the  animals,  one  and  all,  and  in  delightful 
communion  with  each  other.  How  long  this  state  of 
things  lasted,  the  author  does  not  say.*  He  seems  to 
have  meant  to  give  the  impression  that  no  great  length 
of  time  elapsed  before  it  was  disturbed ;  for  he  proceeds 
at  once  to  describe 

b.  The  Origin  of  Evil  (iii.). 

He  explains  the  existence  of  physical  suffering  and 
death  as  the  penalty  for 

(i)  The  First  Disobedience  {^uv.  1-7).  i.  The  pre- 
sence of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  in  the 
garden,  in  view  of  its  attractiveness,  was  in  itself  a  temp- 
tation. This,  however,  was  not  sufficient.  The  force  of 
the  divine  prohibition,  which  would  naturally  operate  to 
prevent  disobedience,  must  in  some  way  be  neutralized. 
This  is  accomplished  through  the  intervention  of  the 
serpent.  The  question,  Who,  or  what,  was  the  serpent, 
has  been  variously  answered.  It  has  been  interpreted  as 
an  allegorical  figure.  Thus,  Reuss  {A  T,  iii.  206  f.)  makes 
it  a  personification  of  the  instinct  that  impels  man  to 
emerge  from  the  condition  of  childhood,  while  Schultz 
{OTTy  ii.  272  ff.)  holds  that  it  symbolizes  the  animal  prin- 
ciple in  mankind.  The  objection  to  the  first  of  these 
views  is,  that  it  neither  attempts  nor  permits  an  explana- 
tion of  the  curse  pronounced  upon  the  serpent.  The 
second  is  still  less  satisfactory ;  for  (/)  the  author  of  the 
story  evidently  did  not  distinguish  between  two  or  more 
species  of  life  in  man,  but  thought  of  it  in  its  entirety  as 
a  manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  Yahweh  in  the  human 
form  (ii.  7  ;  vi.  3)  ;  (2)  on  the  supposition  that  he  made 

*  According  to  the  Book  of  Jubilees  (iii.  12)  it  was  seven  years. 


142  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [III.  i 

such  a  distinction,  the  serpent  could  not  symboUze  the 
animal  life,  since,  although  the  woman  herself  notes 
the  beauty  of  the  tree  and  the  attractiveness  of  its  fruit, 
the  serpent  takes  no  account  of  these  things,  but  pre- 
sents the  higher  advantages  to  be  obtained  by  partaking 
of  it  (iii.  5) ;  and  (j)  this  view  renders  the  author's  state- 
ment concerning  the  penalties  inflicted  confusing  and 
unintelligible.  A  favorite  theory  is  that  the  serpent  was 
a  mask  for  Satan.  It  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  book 
of  Wisdom  (ii.  23  f.  ;  see  also  Rom.  xvi.  20 ;  Rev.  xii.  9 ; 
XX.  2  ;  but  comp.  2  Cor.  xi.  3).  Some  modern  exegetes 
(Delitzsch)  are  very  strenuous  in  their  insistence  upon 
it ;  but  it  cannot  be  maintained.  (/)  There  is  nowhere 
in  the  language  used  any  evidence  that  a  concealed  per- 
sonality was  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  {2)  Granted  that 
the  serpent  was  a  mask  for  another  being,  there  would 
still  be  the  best  of  ground  for  denying  that  this  hypo- 
thetical being  was  Satan :  for  {a)  the  doctrine  of  Satan 
as  an  evil  power  opposed  to  the  Deity  is  considerably 
later  than  the  date  of  the  origin  of  this  story  (comp. 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  i  and  i  Chr.  xxi.  1)  ;  and  {b)  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  positively  evil  being  would  have  forestalled  the 
very  object  of  the  story,  to  explain  the  origin  of  evil  in 
the  world,  (j)  This  interpretation,  also,  like  the  allegori- 
cal, breaks  down  when  applied  to  the  penalty  inflicted  on 
the  serpent ;  for,  either  {a)  the  serpent  alone  is  punished 
and  the  power  of  which  it  was  the  tool  overlooked,  or  {b) 
Satan  is  condemned  to  a  degradation  which  hardly  har- 
monizes with  his  subsequent  position  as  a  son  of  God 
and  a  member  of  the  heavenly  court.  See  Job  i.  6.  If, 
now,  the  serpent  is  neither  a  figure  of  thought  nor  a 
mask  for  Satan,  the  presumption  is  that  it  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  a  real  animal.  That  this  is  the  correct  interpre- 
tation appears  from  the  following  considerations  :  (/)  It 


III.  I]  COMMENTS  143 

is  distinctly  classified  among  the  beasts  of  the  field,  i.  c, 
the  animals  (ii.  19),  or,  strictly  speaking,  the  so-called 
wild  animals  (ii.  20).  {2)  It  is  described  by  a  mark,  cun- 
ning, that  belongs,  or  has  always  been  popularly  supposed 
to  belong,  to  actual  serpents.  See  Mat.  x.  16.  (j)  The 
object  of  the  author  required  the  introduction  of  a  tempter 
without  moral  responsibility.  (4)  The  penalty  inflicted 
upon  the  serpent  {v.  14)  exactly  fits  the  animal  of  that 
name  and  corresponds  to  those  inflicted  upon  the  man 
and  the  woman.  To  the  objection  that  it  is  ridiculous  to 
suppose  the  serpent  ever  to  have  had  the  power  of  speech 
or  any  other  form  than  it  now  wears,  it  is  sufficient  to 
reply  that  the  question  now  is,  not  what  were  the  original 
form  and  capacities  of  this  animal,  but  how  the  author  of 
the  story  conceived  of  it.  The  early  Jews  had  no  diffi- 
culty with  the  literal  interpretation.  They  seem  to  have 
believed  that  all  the  animals  had  the  power  of  speech 
(Jub.  iii.  24),  and  that  the  serpent  went  erect  on  two  feet 
{Bcr.  Rab.).  The  animal,  if  it  was  an  animal,  is  described  as 
most  *  cunning  of  all  the  beasts  of  the  field.  The  epi- 
thet cunning  does  not  imply  moral  obliquity,  but  denotes 
simply  that  this  animal  had  to  a  larger  degree  than  any 
other  the  kind  of  intelligence  that  is  popularly  attributed 
also  to  the  fox.  See  Lu.  xiii.  32.  The  serpent  exemplifies 
its  character  by  the  way  in  which  it  approaches  the  wo- 
man ;  coming  to  her,  apparently,  when  she  happens  to  be 
alone  and  saying, f  Hath  God,  then,  said?  Note  the 
name  for  the  Deity.  The  form  of  address  is  half-exclama- 
tory, as  if  the  serpent  can  hardly  believe  what  it  is  about 

*  The  construction  bDD»  though  comparative  in  form,  is  super- 
lative in  signification,  and  should  be  so  rendered  in  English.  See 
Deu.  vii.  7,  etc.  ;   Konis:,  S//S,  §  309,  d. 

t  In  the  Massoretic  text  the  subject  of  the  verb  "1J2S»  smW,  has 
to  be  supplied  from  the  connection.  A  better  reading  is  that  of  the 
Greek  and  Syriac  versions,  in  which  /he  serpent  is  expressed.  So 
Ball. 


144  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [III.  1-4 

to  put  into  the  mouth  of  God,  Its  version  of  the  divine 
injunction  is  calculated  to  excite  astonishment,  being  a 
reckless  and  incredible  perversion  of  the  original  utter- 
ance. Yahweh  had  forbidden  one  tree ;  the  serpent  pre- 
tends to  have  learned  that  he  has  forbidden  all  of  chem. 
Ye  shall  not  eat  of  any  *  tree  of  the  garden,  is  its 
way  of  putting  it.  Comp.  Murphy. 
"^2.  The  woman's  reply  is  interesting  in  several  respects. 
In  the  first  clause  she  denies  the  serpent's  statement, 
reproducing,  with  unimportant  variations,  ii.  i6b.t 

3.  'As  she  proceeds,  she  diverges  from  the  phraseology 
of  iL  17.  The  tree  whose  fruit  is  forbidden  is  designated, 
not  by  the  name  given  to  it  in  ii.  9  and  17,  but,  as  it 
should  be  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  the  only  one 
there,  by  its  location,  as  this  %  tree  that  is  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  garden.  From  the  fruit  of  this  tree  the 
woman  explains  that  she  and  her  husband  have  been  for- 
bidden to  eat  on  pain  of  death ;  but  she  enlarges  upon 
the  original  injunction  as  reported  in  ii.  16  f.  by  the  inser- 
tion of  an  additional  clause.  This  clause  can  hardly  be  a 
thoughtless  variation.  It  was  doubtless  intended  to  indi- 
cate the  first  effect  upon  the  woman  of  the  serpent's 
insinuation.  It  has  given  rise  to  a  sense  of  injury,  to 
justify  which  she  converts  what  was  at  most  an  implica- 
tion of  the  original  charge  into  an  express  prohibition, 
nor  shall  ye  touch  it  lest  ye  die.  § 

4.  This  reference  to  Yahwch's  threat  furnished  the 
serpent  a  second  opportunity  for  the  exhibition  of  its  cun- 

*  On  the  force  of  bD  with  the  negative,  see  Ex.  xx.  10;  Ges. 
§  152,  I,  a. 

t  The  word  b^*  here  all,  which  is  wanting  in  the  Massoretic 
text,  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  Greek  and  Syriac  versions,  both 
of  which,  however,  omit  ^"^^^  fruit. 

X  The  Samaritan  reading;  the  Massoretic  has  the. 

§  On  the  form  linDH'  see  Ges.  i?  47,  3,  R  4. 


III.  4-6]  COMMENTS  145 

ning.  In  ii.  17  Yahwch  had  said,  In  the  day  thou  catcst 
from  it  thou  sluilt  surely  die.  The  woman  seems  to  have 
understood  these  words  as  meaning  that  death  would  be 
the  direct  and  immediate  effect  of  eating  of  the  forbidden 
fruit.  This,  as  the  sequel  shows,  was  a  mistaken  inter- 
pretation ;  yet  the  serpent  adopted  it,  thus  making  its 
reply,  Ye  will  not  *  surely  die,  at  the  same  time  strictly 
correct  and  utterly  misleading,  since  the  natural  inference 
would  now  be,  that  disobedience  of  the  divine  command 
would  have  no  evil  consequences. 

$.  Having  thus  artfully  disposed  of  the  woman's  fears, 
the  serpent  proceeds  to  inform  her  what  are  the  real 
properties  of  the  tree  in  question.  At  the  same  time  it 
takes  pains  to  increase  the  distrust  of  Yahweh  awakened 
by  its  first  utterance.  The  words  with  which  it  intro- 
duces its  statement  imply,  not  only,  as  v.  3  would  lead 
one  to  suspect,  that  both  the  man  and  his  wife  had 
hitherto  been  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  tree,  but  that 
God  had  purposely  kept  them  in  ignorance  of  it,  and 
from  a  sinister  motive.  God  kno-weth,  it  says,  that  in 
the  day  ye  eat  from  it  your  eyes  will  be  opened. 
What  is  meant  by  the  opening  of  their  eyes  is  at  once 
explained  :  Ye  will  be  like  G-od,  not  gods  (Spurrell), 
knowing  good  and  evil ;  which  could  not  but  seem  to 
the  woman  highly  advantageous. 

6.  The  tree,  thus  skilfully  commended,  now  became 
very  attractive.  The  woman  saw,  first,  that  it,  or  its 
fruit,  was  apparently  good,  fit,  for  food.  This  she  seems 
not  hitherto  to  have  noticed  ;  much  less  that  it  was  a 
delight  to  the  eyes,  looking  as  if  it  would  be,  not  only 
nutritious,  but  delicious.    F'inally,  she  was  convinced  that 

*  On  the  position  of  the  negative,  see  Ges.  §  113,  3,  R  3,  where, 
however,  the  parenthetical  clause  should  read,  "  where  the  object  is 
the  denial  verbalim  of  the  threat  uttered  in  ii.  17." 


146  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [III.  6 

it  was  desirable,  because,  as  the  serpent  had  expressly, 
and  correctly,  told  her,  the  effect  of  eating  from  it  was 
to  make  one  -wise,  to  communicate  a  knowledge  hitherto 
denied.  Comp.  Delitzsch.*  The  last  was  the  determin- 
ing factor.  The  .desire  to  become  like  God,  a  present 
advantage,  overcame  the  fear  of  his  displeasure,  a  future, 
and  now  at  the  most  only  a  possible  disadvantage ;  and, 
approaching  the  tree,  she  took  from  its  fruit  and  ate. 
Then  she  gave  also  to  her  husband.  It  is  not  clear 
that  the  author  thought  of  the  woman  as  giving  the  fruit 
to  her  husband  with  the  idea  of  dividing  the  responsi- 
bility of  transgressing  the  divine  command  (Dillmann). 
The  serpent  had,  as  she  understood  it,  assured  her  that 
there  was  no  danger,  and  she  herself  had  learned  by  test- 
ing it  that  the  fruit  did  not,  as  she  had  supposed  it  would, 
produce  harmful  physical  effects.  It  is  therefore  more 
natural  to  suppose  that  she  acted  upon  an  impulse  to 
share  with  her  husband  the  good  that  she  had  coveted. 
The  phrase  "with  her  is  usually  understood  as  meaning 
that  he  was  present  when  she  finally  yielded  to  the 
tempter.  This,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  has  no  place 
or  part  in  the  scene  between  his  wife  and  the  serpent, 
can  hardly  be  correct.  If,  therefore,  the  present  te.xt  is 
retained,  these  words  must  be  interpreted  as  equivalent 
to  as  well,  denoting  that,  when  she  found  him,  or  he  her, 
she  gave  him  his  share  of  the  fruit  that  she  had  plucked,! 
and  he  ate.J  This  view  of  the  matter  is  supported  by 
the  fact  that,  according  to  vv.  12  and  17,  the  woman 
alone  is  accused  of  tempting  her  husband. 

*  If  the  rendering  preferred  by  Delitzsch,  lovely  to  behold,  be 
adopted,  one  can  hardly  avoid  the  conclusion  of  Gunkcl,  that  this 
last  phrase  is  a  gloss  to  the  one  preceding. 

t  The  Arabic  Version  obtains  a  more  intelligible  reading  by 
placing  this  phrase  at  the  end  of  the  verse.     So  Ball. 

X  The  Greek  and  Samaritan  reading  has  the  plural,  they  ate. 


III.  7]  COMMENTS  147 

7.  The  result  was  just  what  the  serpent  had  predicted  ; 
the  eyes  of  both  of  them  Tvere  opened,  /.  e.,  they 
acquired  the  coveted  power  to  distinguish  for  themselves 
between  good  and  evil.  This  power  at  once  manifested 
itself  in  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  they  "were 
naked.  The  consciousness  of  their  condition  produced 
an  emotion  which  has  usually  been  identified  with  shame 
in  the  sense  of  guilty  confusion  (Dillmann).  It  is  doubt- 
ful if  this  was  the  author's  meaning.  His  idea  seems  to 
have  been  that  the  pair  were  at  first  so  preoccupied  with 
the  operation  of  the  new  faculty  that  they  felt  no  condem- 
nation for  the  act  by  which  they  had  acquired  it.  The 
emotion  produced  by  the  consciousness  of  their  naked- 
ness, therefore,  must  have  been  the  natural  disturbance 
at  being  discovered  naked  which  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  innocence.  It  prompted  them  to  clothe  themselves, 
and,  in  obedience  to  this  normal  impulse,  they  served 
together  fig-leaves  and  made  themselves  aprons. 
The  smallness  and  irregularity  of  the  leaves  of  X\\q  fiats 
carica  do  not  warrant  one  in  supposing  that  the  tree 
here  meant  was  one  of  another  species  ;  c.  g.,  the  banana 
(Delitzsch).  The  fig  probably  has  its  place  in  the  story 
because  the  author,  who  thereby  perhaps  betrays  his 
Palestinian  origin  (Dillmann),  thought  of  it  as  the  tree 
with  which,  through  their  use  of  its  fruit  for  food,  the 
man  and  his  wife  were  best  acquainted.*  The  sugges- 
tion of  Budde  {BU,  69  f.),  that  the  use  of  fig-leaves  for 
the  purpose  described  betrays  their  helplessness,  is  less 
attractive. 

If,  as  has  been  suggested,  the  offending  pair,  at  first, 
being  preoccupied  with  the  new  faculty  and  its  operation, 

*  According  to  some  Jewish  authorities  the  tree  of  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil  was  the  fig.     See  Weber,  PT,  212. 


148  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [III.  8-10 

forgot  Yahweh  and  his  warning,  they  were  soon  reminded 
of  their  responsibility  to  him  and  confronted  with 

(2)  The  Consequences  of  Disobedience  {vv.  8-21). 
8.  While,  as  it  would  seem,  they  were  engaged  in  provid- 
ing themselves  with  a  covering  for  their  nakedness,  they 
heard  Yaweh,  lit.  the  voice  of  Yaweh,  walking,  taking 
his  pleasure  ;  in  the  garden,  his  garden  as  well  as  theirs  ; 
in  the  cool  of  the  day,  just  at  evening,  when  one  would 
naturally  take  such  exercise  (xxiv.  63).  Here  the  author 
apparently  attributes  to  God  a  ponderable  form  and 
parts,  like  those  of  human  beings.  When  they  heard 
him,  the  man  and  his  wife  hid  themselves  among 
the  trees  in  the  garden.  What  prompted  them  thus 
to  try  to  elude  their  Creator  t  The  usual  answer  is,  A 
sense  of  guilt  because  they  had  disobeyed  his  command  ; 
but  see  v.  10. 

9.  After  a  little,  Yahweh,  not  finding  them  as  readily 
as  usual,  called  the  man,  as  one  man  would  call  another, 
saying.  Where  art  thou?  The  question  calls  not  so 
much  for  information  with  respect  to  the  man's  where- 
abouts as  for  an  explanation  of  his  disappearance. 

ID.  The  man,  hearing  the  voice  of  his  Maker,  at  once 
presents  himself  to  give  the  desired  explanation.  I  be- 
came afraid,  he  says,  because  I  -was  naked.  This 
statement  is  often  interpreted  as  a  mere  pretext  (Hol- 
zinger),  and  utilized  as  an  illustration  of  the  rapidity  of 
the  descent  from  innocence  to  depravity.  It  is  very 
doubtful,  however,  if  the  author  intended  that  it  should 
be  so  understood.  In  the  first  place,  he  had  too  great 
knowledge  of  human  nature  to  represent  the  Fall  as  so 
precipitate,  and,  secondly,  he  had  too  much  feeling  for 
literary  effect  to  prefer  a  less,  to  a  more,  dramatic  con- 
ception of  his  subject.  See  xxvi.  7  ff.  ;  xliv.  iff.  The 
story  gains  in  interest  as  well  as  naturalness  on  the  sup- 


III.  10-14]  COMMENTS  149 

position  that  the  man,  surprised  in  the  midst  of  a  new 
experience  before  he  has  time  for  reflection,  is  giving  the 
jreal  reason  for  his  flight  ;  in  other  words,  is  registering  a 
.second  instance  of  the  normal  operation  of  the  newly 
acquired  faculty.  The  naivctt^  with  which  he  is  thus 
made  to  betray  himself  is,  from  a  literary  standpoint,  one 
of  the  finest  features  of  the  story. 

1 1.  The  climax  is  reached  in  the  next  question,*  Who 
told  thee  thou  wast  naked  ?  At  these  words  the  man 
begins  to  realize  what  he  has  done,  and  his  confusion  at 
first  renders  him  speechless.  Indeed  he  does  not  venture 
to  speak  until  forced  to  do  so  by  the  sterner  demand, 
Hast  thou  eaten  from  the  tree  from  'which  I  com- 
manded thee  not  to  eat  ? 

12.  The  mention  of  the  interdict  upon  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil  recalled  the  threat  by  which 
it  was  accompanied,  and  filled  the  man  with  fear.  When 
overcome  by  terror,  men  often  do  things  unworthy  of 
them.  This  first  one  is  represented  as  seeking  to  save 
himself  by  inculpating  his  wife.  Perhaps,  also,  the  words 
attributed  to  him  imply  a  disposition  to  make  Yahweh 
himself  partially  responsible  for  his  disobedience.  They 
are.  The  woman  thou  placedst  with  me,  gavest  me 
as  an  associate,  gave  me  from  the  tree  and  I  ate. 

13.  The  woman,  in  her  turn,  when  called  to  account, 
seeing  that  her  tempter  had  told  her  but  half  the  truth, 
said,  The  serpent  beguiled  me  and  I  ate. 

14.  The  examination  ended,  Yahweh  proceeds  to  pass 
sentence  upon  the  offenders,  beginning  with  the  serpent. 
In  his  first  utterance  he  declares  in  general  terms  that  it 
shall  be  cursed,  not  only  above  all  cattle,  but  above  ajl 
the  rest  of  the  class,  beasts  of  the  field,  to  which,  ac- 

*  The  Syriac  Version  supplies  as  subject  the  equivalent  of 
Yahweh, 


ISO        THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [III.  14,  15 

cording  to  v.  i,  it  properly  belongs.*  It  is  to  be  the  least 
favored  of  animals.  The  implication  is  that  it  was  pre- 
viously one  of  the  most  favored.  It  is  to  be  degraded  in 
its  form  and  habits.  The  decree  is,  On  thy  belly  shalt 
thou  go.  At  this  time,  therefore,  according  to  the  au- 
thor, the  serpent,  of  whose  original  shape  there  is  no 
hint,  by  the  divine  fiat  became  the  limbless,  wriggling; 
creature  since  known  by  its  name.  Comp.  Strack.  Thci 
clause  dust  shalt  thou  eat,  is  merely  a  development  of 
the  one  preceding.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  serpent 
will  henceforth  live  on  dust,  or  dirt,  but  that,  by  its 
method  of  locomotion,  it  will  be  compelled  to  swallow 
more  or  less  of  the  substance  in  which  it  moves.  See 
Mic.  vii.  17;  comp.  Isa.  Ixv.  25.  The  phrase  touching" 
the  duration  of  the  penalty,  all  the  days  of  thy  life,  can 
only  mean  as  long  as  the  species  exists.     S,ee  v.  15. 

15.  The  worst  of  the  curse  is  still  to  come.  Yahweh 
continues  :  I  "will  also  set  enmity  bet-ween  thee  and 
the  "woman,  and  bet"ween  thy  offspring,  the  whole 
serpent  family,  and  her  offspring,  the  entire  human 
race.  Thus,  according  to  the  author,  originated  the 
antipathy,  which  he  regarded  as  natural  and  universal, 
between  men  and  snakes.  When,  therefore,  he  says 
they,  mankind,  shall  bruise  thee,  he  means,  not  the 
individual  animal  addressed,  —  for,  if  it  were  bruised  in 
the  head,  the  feud  would  be  ended,  —  but  its  offspring. 
So,  also,  it  is  the  offspring  of  the  serpent  that  is  to 
wound  t  mankind  in  the  heel.     The  fact  that  it  is  the 

*  Here,  again,  the  word  otJicr  must  be  supplied  to  complete  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  author  in  English. 

t  The  meaning  of  V\Wi  the  word  here  rendered  ivoutid,  is  dis- 
puted. Delitzsch  insists  that  it  can  only  mean  bruise.  Dillmann, 
following  the  Greek  Version,  gives  it  the  force  of  PlStt7'  aim  at 
{trachti'H  nach).  Holzinger  suspects  that  it,  as  well  as  r|Str>  has 
both  meanings,  and  that  in  this  case  it  should  be  rendered,  first  by 


III.  15,  1 6]  COMMENTS  151 

head  of  the  serpent  which  is  to  be  bruised,  and  the  heel 
of  mankind  that  is  to  be  wounded,  has  led  many  to  sup- 
pose that  the  triumph  of  the  offspring  of  the  woman 
over  the  serpent's  is  here  predicted  (Luther).  This, 
however,  is  not  the  case.  The  head  of  the  serpent  is 
specified  because  that  is  the  part  of  the  animal  where  an 
injury  is  most  effective  ;  and  the  heel  of  the  human  spe- 
cies because  that  is  the  only  part  within  easy  reach  of 
their  adversary  :  but  a  blow  on  the  head  is  no  more  seri- 
ous to  the  serpent  than  a  poisonous  wound  in  the  heel  to 
its  hereditary  enemy.  There  is  thus  no  intimation  with 
respect  to  the  outcome  of  the  feud,  unless  it  be  in  the 
fact  that  the  enmity  between  the  parties  is  represented 
as  a  penalty  inflicted  upon  the  serpent.  On  the  justice 
of  this  infliction  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  Hebrews 
saw  no  cruelty  in  putting  to  death  a  beast  that  was  dan- 
gerous to  man.     Sec  Ex.  xxi.  28  ff. 

16.  Turning  now  to  the  woman,  Yahweh  passes  sen- 
tence upon  her.*  She  has  hitherto  known  only  the 
free  and  agreeable  play  of  the  forces  implanted  in  her 
nature.     The   author  evidently  believed   that,   had  she 

bruise  and  then  by  pant  for,  or  a  similar  term.  See  the  Vulgate. 
Furst  also  supposes  it  to  have  a  twofold  signification,  but  he,  re- 
calling the  Syriac  shaphyah,  sting,  makes  the  second  pierce.  So 
the  Sypiac  Version.  The  second  and  third  of  these  views  are  un- 
tenable, because  they  do  not  harmonize  with  the  apparent  aim  of 
the  author  to  explain,  not  only  the  mutual  hatred  existing  between 
men  and  serpents,  but  the  positive  injuries  which  they  arc  thereby 
prompted  to  inflict  upon  one  another.  Either  of  the  other  two  seems 
defensible,  that  of  Fiirst  being  most  attractive.  It  is  not  impos- 
sible that  in  the  second  clause  "IDCItiTI  is  a  mistake  for  IDDtTH' 
from  "71273'  bite,  sting,  which  would  be  the  usual  expression  in  such 
a  connection.     See  xlix.  17. 

*  The  connective  >  here  rendered  b:it,   is   supplied   from   the 
Samaritan  text,  which  is  followed  by  the  Greek  Version. 


152  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [III.  i6 

resisted  the  tempter,  she  would  have  remained  ignorant 
of  suffering,  even  in  childbirth  ;  that,  in  fact,  suffering 
was  now  introduced  into  the  world  as  a  punishment  for 
her  disobedience.  This  is  what  is  meant,  when  Yahweh 
says,  I  will  send  thee  labor  very  sore.*  There  follows 
what  seems  to  be  a  gloss  inserted  to  prevent  mistake 
with  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  ambiguous  word 
labor,  which  is  used  in  a  different  sense  in  v.  i8.f  The 
addition  even  thy  pregnancy,  however,  was  hardly 
necessary,  since  the  next  clause  explains  that  the  labor  % 
intended  is  that  of  childbirth.  The  curse  pronounced 
upon  the  woman,  like  that  imposed  upon  the  serpent,  is 
twofold,  and  the  second  part  is  here,  as  in  the  former 
case,  a  change  of  relation.  She  was  created  the  equal  of 
her  husband  (ii.  24),  and  thus  far  she  has  consistently 
been  so  represented  ;  but  now  Yahweh  says,  thy  long- 
ing §  shall  be  toward  thy  husband,  and  he  shall 
rule  over  thee.     The  term  lojiging  is  generally  inter- 

*  A  literal  rendering  would  be,  /  will  greatly  multiply  thy 
labor :  but  this  might  be  understood  as  implying  that  Hawwah 
had  already  had  some  experience  in  suffering,  which  the  author 
would  certainly  not  have  admitted.  The  translation  given  above 
precludes  such  a  misunderstanding. 

t  On  the  construction  of  "^^nn*  or,  as  the  Samaritans  read, 
'73V'^n'  comp.  Ges.  §  154,  n.  b.  Gunkel,  following  the  Greek  Ver- 
sion, amends  the  text  by  substituting  "J3V;in>  thy  sighing,  or 
"TDI^N  thy  pain. 

X  For  n!J17  read,  with  the  Samaritans,  "Jin^r-     So  Ball. 

§  This  is  the  reading  of  the  Massoretic  text,  but  instead  of 
'7np1I27n  the  Greek  and  Syriac  versions  have  the  equivalent  of 
'7ri3'1I27n»  thy  return  ;  and  Ball,  following  Nestle,  adopts  the  latter, 
citinfj  in  support  of  his  opinion  2  Sam.  xvii.  3,  where,  according  to 
Driver  {HTS,  248  f.),  the  correct  reading  is,  as  a  bride  returneth 
to  her  husband.  Note,  however,  that  in  Cant.  vii.  n/io,  where  the 
versions  again  appear  to  have  read  "fnnVJ^n  for  "jnpltr'in'  return 
in  the  sense  of  2  Sam.  xvii.  3  is  anything  but  appropriate. 


1 1 1 .  1 6,  1 7]  COMMENTS  1 53 

pretcd  as  meaning  sexual  desire,  to  which  the  author  is 
supposed  to  have  intended  to  represent  women  as  pecu- 
liarly subject.  This  interpretation,  however,  is  not  en- 
tirely satisfactory.  The  word  here  used  is  found  in  only 
two  other  places  in  the  Old  Testament,  iv.  7  and  Cant, 
vii.  ii/io.  In  the  former  of  these  passages,  if  it  means 
anything,  it  must  mean  inclination,  or  something  equally 
removed  from  sensuality  ;  and  in  the  latter,  where  a  man 
is  the  subject,  it  has  the  force  of  affection,  dcvotioji. 
There  is  therefore  ground  for  the  opinion  that  the  author, 
in  this  passage,  intended  to  make  Yahweh  say  that  the 
very  tenderness  of  the  woman  for  her  husband  would  en- 
able him  to  make  and  keep  her  his  inferior.  Whichever 
of  these  views  is  adopted,  it  should  not  be  overlooked, 
that  the  change  in  the  nature  and  destiny  of  the  woman 
here  described  is  not  an  effect  produced  by  the  forbidden 
fruit  or  the  act  of  disobedience,  but  a  penalty  chosen 
freely  by  Yahweh  after  the  offence  had  been  committed. 
Comp.  Delitzsch. 

17.  Last  of  all  the  man*  receives  his  sentence.  It  is 
none  the  lighter  for  the  excuse  he  offered.  Because 
thou  hast  listened  to  the  voice  of  thy  Tvife,  says 
Yahweh.  This  means,  what  was  taken  for  granted  in  the 
case  of  the  woman,  that  temptation,  while  it  may  explain, 
does  not  excuse  transgression.  It  is  interesting  to  no- 
tice that  even  here  the  forbidden  tree  is  not  described 
by  its  properties,  but  as  the  tree  concerning  "which  I 
commanded  thee,  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  eet  from 
it.  The  penalty  is,  cursed  shall  be  the  ground  on  thy 
account ;  because  of  thy  disobedience,  and  for  its  pun- 
ishment. The  rest  is  explanatory.  The  earth,  or  that 
part  of  it  occupied  by  the  first  pair,  had  hitherto  produced 
abundantly,    and    seemingly   without   the    necessity    of 

*  This  is  the  Greek  reading ;  the  Massorctic  text  has  'Adham. 


154         THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [III.  17-19 

fatiguing  effort  on  their  part.  The  man,  at  least,  is  now 
to  be  required  to  exert  himself,  and  that  painfully,  that 
he  may  obtain  the  means  of  subsistence.  In  his  case 
the  very  ground  has  become  an  enemy,  and  in  his  case 
also  there  is  to  be  no  end  to  the  struggle  ;  -with  pain 
Shalt  thou  eat  from  it,  lit.  cat  it,  all  the  days  of  thy 
life.  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  serpent,  the  individual 
addressed  represents  his  kind.  The  last  phrase,  there- 
fore, means  as  long  as  the  race  endures. 

18.  In  the  preceding  verse  the  author  doubtless  in- 
tended to  convey  the  idea  that,  on  account  of  the  man's 
transgression,  Yahwehthen  and  there  diminished  the  fer- 
tility of  the  earth.  He  now  further  represents  the  Crea- 
tor as  decreeing  that  it  shall  henceforth  be  infested  with 
thorns  and  thistles,  the  most  noxious  of  weeds,  which 
nut  only  divide  the  productive  power  of  the  soil  with 
useful  plants,  but  hinder  the  latter  from  securing  their 
share  of  nourishment.  Heretofore  there  had  been  no- 
thing of  this  kind.  The  full  significance  of  this  item 
appears  with  the  further  announcement  that  henceforth 
man  must  eat  the  herb  of  the  field,  the  smaller  plants 
or  their  fruits.  According  to  i.  29,  God,  immediately 
upon  creating  man,  gave  him  every  herb  yicldiiig  seed  that 
is  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth  as  well  as  all  the  treeSy 
for  his  sustenance.  This  author  evidently  believed  that 
man  originally  lived  from  the  fruits  of  trees,  and  that  the 
use  of  grains,  etc.,  for  food,  and  the  toil  necessary  to  pro- 
duce them  under  existing  conditions,  were  a  reminder  of 
God's  displeasure  with  the  first  of  the  race.* 

19.  In  V.  ly  the  strenuousness  of  the  toil  imposed  upon 
the  man  was  indicated  by  the  use  of  the  same  word  for 
it  that  was  used  in  z;.  16  for  the  suffering  of  the  woman 

*  The  above  interpretation,  if  correct,  makes  it  improbable  that, 
as  Holzingcr  suggests,  iSb  is  a  gloss. 


1 1 1 .  1 9,  20]  COMMENTS  1 55 

in  childbirth.  The  same  thing  is  now  pictured  in  its  most 
famihar  external  manifestation.  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face,  says  Yahvveh,  shalt  thou  eat  bread.  He  adds, 
until  thou  return  to  the  ground.*  These  words,  be- 
sides repeating  the  idea  already  expressed  at  the  close  of 
V.  17,  introduce  the  curse  for  which,  as  it  now  appears, 
the  others  were,  not  substitutes,  but  a  preparation. 
Yahweh  at  last  makes  good  his  threat  :  dust  thou  art, 
and  to  dust  thou  shalt  return.  The  sentence  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  man,  but  it  applies  also  to  the  woman. 
Indeed,  as  in  the  previous  cases,  it  is  a  hereditary  inflic- 
tion. As  a  penalty  for  the  act  by  which  the  first  pair 
transgressed  his  command,  Yahweh  ordains  that  their 
bodies,  and  the  bodies  of  their  descendants,  shall  finally 
dissolve  and  mingle  with  the  earth  of  which  they  were 
originally  a  part.  When  the  sentence  is  to  be  executed, 
and  what  is  to  become  of  the  spirit  thus  released, — to 
these  questions,  for  the  present  at  least,  the  author  has  no 
answer. 

20.  This  verse  has  not  the  slightest  connection  with 
the  preceding.  In  fact,  it  interrupts  the  connection  and 
introduces  discord  into  the  story.  Would  the  author  of 
it  have  represented  the  man  f  as  replying  to  his  death 
warrant  by  jauntily  renaming  his  wife  Hawwah,  Life  } 
The  proper  occasion  for  such  a  change  was  after  the 
birth  of  her  first  child,  when  she  might  appropriately 
have  been  described  as  the  mother  of  every  one  living. 
Hence  the  verse,  if  it  is  to  have  any  significance,  must 
be  inserted  after  iv.  i.J 

*  The  added  words,  for  from  it  thou  wast  taken,  have  the 
appearance  of  a  gloss. 

f  The  Samaritan  reading  is  Wdham. 

X  So  Bacon  {GG,  104),  who  refers  it  to  J.  Comp.  Budde,  BU, 
60.  It  would  make  sense  also  if  inserted  after  iii.  25  in  its  original 
form. 


156         THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [III.  21,  22 

21.  This  section  of  the  story  closes  with  a  statement 
that  somewhat  rehevcs  the  severity  of  the  preceding 
verses,  Yahweh,  presumably  out  of  pity  for  the  help- 
lessness of  his  unhappy  creatures,  made  for  the  man* 
and  his  wife  tunics  of  skin,  to  take  the  place  of  the 
aprons  that  they  had  made,  or  were  making,  for  them- 
selves, and  clothed  them.  Since  there  is  no  hint  of  a 
change  in  climatic  conditions,  the  object  of  Yahweh  in 
providing  these  first  clothes  must  have  been  to  satisfy 
the  demands  of  modesty.  The  mention  of  skins,  which 
could  only  be  obtained  by  the  slaughter  of  animals,  as 
the  material  out  of  which  the  garments  were  made,  sug- 
gests several  interesting  questions  :  What  was  done  with 
the  flesh  of  the  slaughtered  animals  }  Was  it  eaten  by 
the  man  and  his  wife  in  apparent  contradiction  with  v.  18, 
or  sacrificed  to  Yahweh  ?  If  the  latter  was  the  case,  was 
this  the  first  instance  of  sacrifice,  or  had  the  custom  ex- 
isted from  the  beginning  1  In  other  words  what  was  the 
author's  idea  of  the  significance  of  sacrifice }  He  gives 
no  clew  to  a  reliable  answer  to  any  of  these  questions  in 
this  connection. 

(3)  Expulsion  from  Paradise  {vv.  22-24).  This 
part  of  the  story  was  originally  told  in  a  single  verse,  but 
in  the  present  text  the  conclusion  has  been  expanded  into 
a  separate  scene,  laid  partly  in  heaven  and  partly  on 
earth,  by  the  addition  of  a  duplicate  of  the  original  ver- 
sion in  which  the  tree  of  life  reappears. 

22.  Yahweh  is  first  represented  as  considering  with 
his  angels  the  best  method  of  dealing  with  his  disobedient 
creatures.  The  act  committed  has  already  been  reported. 
The  scene  opens  with  a  statement  of  the  situation,  Lo, 
the  man  has  become  as  one  of  us,  knowing  good 

*  This  is  the  Greek  reading;  the  Massorctic  text  has  \idliam. 


III.  22-241  COMMENTS  i57 

and  evil.  This  statement  leaves  no  room  for  the  inter- 
view between  Yahweh  and  the  offenders  just  described. 
It  also  betrays  the  jealousy  that  the  serpent,  falsely,  it 
is  safe  to  suppose,  imputed  to  the  Creator.  The  rest  of 
the  verse  is  in  a  similar  strain,  the  reason  assigned  for 
driving  the  man  from  the  garden  being,  lest  he  take  also 
from  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  forever.  In 
other  words,  Yahweh  seems  more  concerned  to  frustrate 
the  ambition  of  his  creature  than  to  maintain  his  own 
authority.  The  last  sentence  is  incomplete,  lacking  a 
protasis,  which  would  read,  let  us  drive  him  from  the 
garden^  etc. 

23.  The  continuation  of  v.  22  is  found  in  v.  24.  These 
two  verses  are  separated  by  the  simple  statement  with 
which,  as  has  been  intimated,  the  story  originally  con- 
cluded, then  Yahweh  sent  him  from  the  garden  of 
•Edhen  *  to  till  the  ground  whence  he  was  taken. 
Thus  was  begun  the  execution  of  the  sentence  which 
was  to  end  in  death. | 

24.  This  verse  describes  the  removal  of  the  man  from 
the  garden  in  sterner  terms  than  those  of  v.  23.  It  says 
the  man  was  driven  forth,  and  that,  to  keep  him  out, 
Yahweh  stationed  eastward  of  the  garden  of  'Edhen, 
where  the  entrance  was  located,  cherubs.J    The  various 

*  The  phrase  the  garden  of  'Edhen  occurs  elsewhere  in  the 
story  only  in  ii.  15,  which  is  probably  editorial,  the  original  author 
always  (ii.  16;  iii.  i,  2,  3,  8  bis,  10)  saying  simply  the  garden.  The 
descriptive  term  of  'Edhen  is  here,  therefore,  probably  a  gloss. 
See  V.  24. 

\  Compare  Holzinger,  who  pronounces  at  least  the  last  half  of  this 
verse  an  interpolation  in  contradiction  with  vv.  17-19,  although  the 
final  clause  is  a  recapitulation  of  v.  19. 

X  The  Greek  version  has  he  caused  him  (man)  to  dwell  eastward 
of  the  garden  of  'Edhen,  and  set  the  cherubs,  etc.,  and  Ball  adopts 
this  reading;  but  it  can  hardly  represent  the  original  text.     In  the 


158  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [III.  24 

references  to  cherubs  in  the  Old  Testament  are  of  two 
classes :  (/)  those  in  which  they  act  as  throne-bearers  to 
Yahweh  (Ps.  xviii.  ii/io;  Eze.  x.  i  ff.),  and  {2)  those  in 
which  they  serv^e  as  guardians  of  sacred  places  (Ex.  xxv. 
18  ff. ;  I  Kgs.  vi.  23  ff.  ;  Eze.  xxviii.  14  ff,).  The  passage 
now  under  consideration  clearly  belongs  to  the  latter  of 
these  classes.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  suppose 
that  in  all  cases  of  this  sort  the  conception  is  identical. 
Cheyne  {Enc.  Bib.)  supposes  the  cherub  to  have  been  of 
Hittite  origin  and  originally  to  have  had  the  fabulous 
form  of  the  griffin ;  but,  since  the  narrative  to  which  this 
verse  belongs,  especially  in  its  later  portions,  betrays 
Assyrian  influence,  it  is  probable  that  the  cherubs  here 
meant  were  winged  bulls,  like  those  by  which  the  en- 
trances to  Assyrian  (and  Elamitic)  temples  and  palaces 
were  flanked,  and  to  which  the  name  kintbu,  as  well  as 
shedii,  was  sometimes  applied.  See  Eze.  x.  14,  where 
chenib  takes  the  place  of  the  ox  oi  i.  10 ;  also  Ball,  LE^ 
31  ff.  ;  Lenormant,  BH,  117  ff.  ;  Schrader,  KAT,  39  ff. ; 
Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  1 50  ff.  ;  comp.  Die.  Bib.  There 
was  a  second  obstacle  to  the  man's  return  in  a  gleaming, 
whirling  svrord,  cutting  and  thrusting  this  way  and 
that,  not  in  the  hand  of  one  of  the  cherubs,  but  probably 
between  them  in  the  very  entrance  to  the  garden.*  Thus 
carefully  did  Yahweh  guard  the  "way  to  the  tree  of 
life. 

first  place,  it  impedes  the  flow  of  the  author's  thought;  further,  it 
is  unlitce  the  author  of  vv.  22  and  23  to  introduce  such  a  touch  of 
consideration  for  man;  and  finally,  it  is  easily  accounted  for  by 
supposing  that  either  the  Greek  translator  or  a  copyist  before  him, 
recalling  xi.  2,  first  mistook  the  object  of  the  only  verb  in  the  clause 
and  then  supplied  a  synonymous  verb  to  govern  the  following  ac- 
cusatives. 

*  On  this  weapon  sec  the  ingenious  discussion  of  Lenormant, 
DH,  136  ff. 


III.]  COMMENTS  159 

The  story  of  the  Fall  in  its  Hebrew  form  was  clearly 
intended  to  be  taken  literally ;  hence  the  interpretation 
adopted  in  the  foregoing  comments.  It  is  possible  that 
some  who  admit  the  correctness  of  this  method  of  inter- 
preting it  will  continue  to  regard  it  as  veritable  history, 
but  most  thoughtful  people  will  feel  obliged  to  question 
or  deny  the  correctness  of  the  account  of  the  origin  of 
evil  here  given.  Those  who  accept  this  result,  however, 
need  not  reject  the  story  as  worthless,  and  therefore 
unworthy  of  a  place  in  the  Scriptures ;  for,  although  it  is 
not  historically  valuable,  the  religious  ideas  it  inculcates, 
especially  in  view  of  the  antiquity  of  their  origin,  are 
remarkable  for  their  excellence.  It  teaches,  naively  but 
forcibly,  the  sovereignty  as  well  as  the  beneficence  of 
God,  the  freedom  and  responsibility  of  man,  and  the 
dependence  of  human  happiness  upon  obedience  to  the 
divine  will.  It  is  these  ideas  that  have  given  the  story 
its  real  value  in  the  past,  and,  if  properly  emphasized, 
they  will  make  it,  to  those  who  read  the  Bible  for  edifica- 
tion, equally  helpful  in  the  future.* 

The  exit  of  the  first  pair  from  the  garden  marks  the 
beginning,  according  to  the  Hebrews,  of  a  new  period  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  a  period  of  rapid  development 
in  two  directions.  The  exiles  had  taken  their  first  step  in 
the  arts  of  civilization  when  they  undertook  to  provide 
themselves  with  clothing.  Their  immediate  descendants, 
seeking  relief  from  the  hard  conditions  under  which  they 
had  been  condemned  to  live,  displayed  their  superiority 
to  their  brute  companions  in  other  similar  achievements. 
The  development  in  this  direction,  however,  as  the  record 
is  now  constituted,  is  more  or  less  ob^^Uicd  by  the  promi- 

*  On  an  alleged  Babylonian  parallel  to  the  story  (.f  the  Fall,  see 
Boscawcn,  DM,  85  ff. ;  Kyle,  ENG,  39  ff. ;  comp,  Si  irader,  KA  7", 
37  f. 


l6o  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [IV.  i 

nence  given  to  the  growing  alienation  of  the  race  from 
God  during  the  same  period.  The  first  sin,  although,  so 
far  as  can  be  learned  from  the  record,  it  did  not  disor- 
ganize human  nature,  as  it  has  sometimes  been  repre- 
sented to  have  done,  and  although  the  ills  by  which  it 
was  punished  remained  as  a  warning  against  further 
offences,  was  followed  by  others,  until  the  race  became 
a  race  of  evil-doers.  This  period  may  therefore  be  called 
the  period  of 

2.  Early  Growth  and  Corruption  (iv.  i-vi.  8). 

The  composite  history  of  it  first  follows 

a.  The  Line  of  Kayin  (iv.  1-24), 
the  account  of  which  is  largely  devoted  to 

(i)  The  First  Murder  (^ov.  i-i6).  The  first  verse  of 
this  passage  and  parts  of  v.  i6  are  generally  attributed 
to  the  author  of  the  story  of  the  Fall ;  the  rest  of  it, 
owing  to  discrepancies  with  the  preceding  and  following 
context,  is  supposed  to  be  the  work  of  another  hand.* 
The  occasion  of  this  first  crime  was 

(a)  A  Rejected  Offering  {vv.  1-7).  i.  The  man  began 
at  once  to  pay  the  penalty  imposed  upon  him.  To 
Ha"wwah,t  his  "wife,  was  granted  a  brief  respite ;  but 
finally  she  conceived  J  and,  in  process  of  time,  bore 

*  The  first  verse  supplies  the  genealogical  table  in  vv.  17  ff.  with 
a  needed  starting-point.  See  also  the  name  Yahweh,  which,  the 
correctness  of  the  reading  being  taken  for  granted  (compare  the 
Ocek  Version),  the  author  of  vv.  25  f.  as  well  as  vi'.  3-1 6a  would 
hardly  have  put  into  the  mouth  of  Hawwah.  For  further  discre- 
pancies compare  vv.  2  and  20,  7/.  12  and  iii.  17,  and  vv.  14  and  17. 
See  also  Budde,  BU.,  183  ff . ;  Bacon,  GG,  105;  comp.  Dillman  /.  /. 

t  If,  as  has  been  suggested,  iii.  20  belongs  after  iv.  i,  this  name 
must  have  been  inserted  after  the  former  verse  had  been  removed 
to  its  present  position. 

X  Rashi  and  others  give  to  this  and  the  precedinij  verb  the  sense 
of  the  Pluperfect,  and  i  Sam.  ix.  15  ff.  and  2  Kgs.  viii.  i  ff.  make  it 


IV.  I,  2]  COMMENTS  i6i 

her  first  child,  Kayin.  Comp.  v.  3.  The  words  with 
which  she  is  represented  as  greeting  him  illustrate  a  say- 
ing of  Jesus.  She  forgot  the  anguish  he  had  cost  her 
for  joy  that  a  man  had  been  born  into  the  world  (Jno. 
xvi.  21);  saying  exultingly,  I  have  gained  ♦  a  man  with 
Yahweh.  The  final  phrase  is  not  entirely  clear,  but  it 
probably  means  by  the  aid  of  the  Deity. f 

2.  The  birth  of  Kayin  was  followed  by  that  of  a  bro- 
ther, but  probably  not,  as  some  (Reuss)  infer,  imme- 
diately ;  for,  had  the  author  meant  to  represent  the  boys 
as  twins,  he  would  have  done  so  in  a  way  not  to  be  mis- 
taken. The  name  given  to  the  younger  was  Hebhel, 
but  the  present  text  gives  no    reason   for   so   naming 

necessary  to  admit  the  possibility  of  such  an  interpretation ;  but 
it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  the  author  to  have  intended  to  say 
that  the  man  did  not  know  his  wife,  or,  at  any  rate,  that  their  inter- 
course did  not  result  in  conception,  until  after  their  expulsion  from 
the  garden. 

*  The  verb  7V:i\)  {kanah)  was  doubtless  used,  not  because  the 
author  derived  Kayin  from  it,  but  because  the  name,  whose  mean- 
ing according  to  some  authorities  is  spear  {Die.  Bib.\  according  to 
others  smith  {Enc.  Bib.),  in  sound  suggested  it.  In  other  words, 
it  is  a  case  of  alliteration,  imperfectly  reproduced  in  English  by  the 
rendering  gained. 

t  On  the  force  of  nS»  see  Mic.  iii.  8.  It  is  also  used  to  desig- 
nate a  definite  Accusative.  Hence  some  exegetes  have  interpreted 
Yahweh  as  a  second  Accusative,  thus  making  Hawwah  say  that 
she  had  gotten  the  Deity  either  as  a  son  (Luther)  or  a  husband 
(Umbreit).  Both  of  these  alternatives  must  be  rejected ;  the  former 
because  it  anticipates  a  much  later  doctrine,  and  the  latter  because 
it  is  the  child's,  and  not  the  husband's,  name  that  is  to  be  explained. 
A  more  attractive  suggestion  is  that,  as  the  Targum  of  Onkelos 
and  the  Samaritan  Version  would  indicate,  the  original  reading 
was  not  nS»  but  r\^tli  from  with  qx  from.  Zeydner  {ZA  W,  1898, 
120)  prefers  nS'  sign,  interpreted  here  and  t/.  15  as  circumcision, 
while  Gunkel  would  emend  niH"^  nS  to  niSnS'  /  desired.  The 
Greek  Version  has  through  (5ta)  God.  Comp.  Haupt  m  Addenda  to 
Ball's  Genesis,  118. 


l62  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [IV.  2-4 

him.*  In  process  of  time  he  became  a  keeper  of 
sheep ;  better,  perhaps,  small  cattle,  since  the  word 
usually  rendered  sJiccp  includes  both  sheep  and  goats. 
See  Gen.  xxvii.  9.  The  inference  is  that  he  was  the  first 
of  his  class ;  but  see  v.  20,  where  the  credit  of  intro- 
ducing the  occupation  of  keeping  cattle  large  and  small 
is  given  to  Yabhal,  the  oldest  son  of  Lemekh.  That 
Hebhel  ate  the  flesh,  as  well  as  drank  the  milk  and  wore 
the  wool,  of  his  flock,  may  be  taken  for  granted.  See 
also  V.  4.  The  final  clause,  which  was  probably  originally 
attached  immediately  to  v.  i,  or  some  form  of  it,t  states 
that  Kayin,  following  the  example  of  his  father,  became 
a  tiller  of  the  ground.  For  the  continuation  of  the 
original  account  of  him,  see  v.  i6b. 

3.  The  date  of  the  inserted  incident  is  indefinite.  It 
occurred  after  a  time,  lit.  after  days,  when  Kayin,  not 
necessarily  for  the  first  time,  brought  from  the  produce 
of  the  ground,  the  fruit  of  his  toil,  an  offering,  tribute 
in  kind,  to  Yahweh ;  to  whom  he  thus  formally  acknow- 
ledged himself  indebted  for  the  success  of  his  husbandry. 
4a.  At  the  same  time  Hebhel  also  brought  an  offering. 
He  is  said  to  have  taken  for  this  purpose  from  the  first- 
lings of  his  flock ;  not,  however,  the  entire  carcass 
(Keil),  but,  as  is  explained  in  a  gloss,  their  fat,^  the 

*  The  meaning  of  the  name  is  disputed.  A  favorite  opinion  has 
been,  that  it  is  identical  with  the  appellative  hebhel,  breath,  vanity, 
and  that  it  was  given  in  allusion  to  the  brevity  of  the  owner's  life ; 
others  have  connected  it  with  the  Assyrian  aplu,  son  (Schrader, 
KAT,  44  ff.);  but  a  more  probable  conjecture  is  that,  Hke  the 
Syriac  habbala,  it  originally  had  the  signification  shepherd.  See 
Yabhal,  v,  20. 

t  The  supposition  is  that,  before  the  introduction  of  Hebhel,  the 
text  had  the  unemphatic  form  "J'^p  "^n^V     See  Cies.  §  142,  i. 

\  On  the  relation  of  this  phrase  to  the  preceding,  see  Ges.  §  154, 
n.  I,  b.     One  reason  for  pronouncing  it  a  gloss  is  that  the  suffix  of 


IV.  4-7]  COMMENTS  163 

parts  which,  according  to  the  Mosaic  ritual  (Ex.  xxiii. 
1 8b;  Lev.  iii.  3  f.),  were  regularly  burned  on  the  altar. 
The  rest  furnished  the  feast  which  always  accompanied 
such  an  offering. 

4b.  Yahweh  had  regard  to  Hebhel  and  his  offer- 
ing ;  gave  it  his  approval.  How  he  did  so,  the  author 
neglects  to  say.  He  probably  would  have  said  by  send- 
ing fire  to  consume  the  offering,  as  in  the  case  of 
Manoah's  (Jud.  vi.  21)  or  Elijah's  (i  Kgs.  xviii.  38).  Comp. 
St  rack.  5.  On  the  other  hand,  to  Kayin  and  his  offer- 
ing he  had  not  regard.  Here  again  there  is  left  plenty 
of  room  for  conjecture ;  but  it  is  not  probable  that  the 
author  would  have  explained  the  failure  of  Kayin  to 
please  his  Maker  as  due  to  the  character  of  his  offering ; 
e.  g.,  because  it  was  a  vegetable  rather  than  an  animal 
offering  (Tuch),  or  because  it  was  not  so  choice  as  that 
of  his  brother  (Uelitzsch)  ;  much  less  because  it  was  not 
properly  prepared  for  the  altar  (Ball).  He  would  be  the 
last  to  attribute  importance  to  such  matters.  The  natural 
inference  from  v.  7  is  that  Kayin  had  manifested  a  bad 
disposition,  and  that  the  rejection  of  his  offering  was  of 
the  nature  of  an  admonition.  This  inference  seems  to 
be  confirmed  by  his  conduct  on  the  present  occasion. 
He  became  very  angry  and  do"wncast,  lit.  Jiis  face  fell. 
See  the  English  cJiapfallcn. 

6.  Yahweh  remonstrated  with  him.  Why  art  thou 
angry  ? 

7.  Kayin  was  angry  because  he  and  his  offering  had 
not  been  received  with  favor.  This  fact  makes  it  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that,  in  the  apodosis  of  If  thou  doest 

^n^bn  (Sam.  ^rr^^bn)  is  plural,  although  under  the  circumstances 
the  author  of  the  story  can  hardly  have  thought  of  Hebhel  as  bring- 
ing more  than  one  animal.  On  the  construction  of  the  phrase,  of 
the  firstlings^  etc.,  so  interpreted,  see  Ex.  vi.  25  and  Job  xxvii.  6. 


i64  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [IV.  7 

well,  the  word  expressing  the  result,  lit.  uplifting,^  is 
to  be  rendered,  not  cheerfulness  (Dillmann),  but  accept- 
ance. See  I  Sam.  xxv.  35.  This  rendering  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  next  clause, 
where  doth  not  sin  lie  at  the  door  f  teaches  that  the 
evil-doer  must  answer  for  his  deeds,  and  implies  that  no 
such  person  can  expect  to  find  favor  for  himself  or  his 
offerings  with  Yahweh.  The  teaching  of  the  whole  ut- 
terance, therefore,  is,  that  "the  sacrifices  of  the  wicked 
are  an  abomination  to  Yahweh "  (Prv.  xv.  8 ;  see  also 
Am.  V.  21  ff. ;  Isa.  i.  10  ff.).  There  follows  a  statement 
that  has  the  appearance  of  a  gloss  suggested  by  a  mis- 
taken interpretation  of  the  word  lie.X  Its  real  force  is 
seen  in  Deu.  xxix.  19/20.  The  scribe,  however,  probably 
with  Gen.  xlix.  9  in  mind,  interpreted  it  as  meaning  lie  hi 
wait,  and,  thinking  it  important  that  the  reader  should  be 
reminded  that  niam  had  power  to  resist  evil  even  after  his 
expulsion  from  Paradise,  added  yet  tO"ward  thee  shall 
be  its,  the  crouching  sin's,  longing,  and  thou  shalt 
rule,  prevail,  over  it.  The  inappropriateness  of  the  term 
lo7igi7ig  in  this  connection  is  apparent. § 

t  The  last  words  are  usually  rendered  affirmatively,  sin  lieth,  etc., 
but  the  parallelism  between  the  two  conditional  clauses  requires 
that  the  interroj^ative,  which,  in  the  original,  precedes  the  particle 
introducing  the  first,  should  be  supplied  with  the  second.  See  Ges. 
§152,3- 

§  The  present  text  has  been  rendered,  Whether  thou  bringest  a 
rich  ojl'erini^  or  not,  etc.  (Budde)  ;  but,  although  Stt73  might  mean 
brini^  a  gift,  nstl^b  ^'^liTf  could  hardly  mean  britig  a  rich  gift. 
The  Cireek  Version  reads,  If  thou  bringest  ri(^htly,  but  dost  twt 
rightly  dii'iiie,  hast  thou  not  sinned?  Be  still;  to  thee  shall  be  his 
(Hebhers)  return,  etc.;  and  in  spite  of  the  evident  unnaturalness 
of  the  first,  and  the  inconsequence  of  the  last,  half  of  the  verse  thus 
rendered.  Ball  corrects  the  text  to  make  it  agree  with  this  reading. 


IV.  7-9]  COMMENTS  165 

(b)  TJie  Offerers  Resentment  {vv.  8-16)  finally  —  how 
soon  does  not  appear  —  vented  itself  upon  his  innocent 
brother. 

8.  The  present  text  is  corrupt  or  defective.  The  verse 
begins,  Then  Kayin  said  to  Hebhel ;  but  no  speech  of 
the  one  to  the  other  follows.  The  Samaritan  reading, 
which  is  followed  by  the  versions,  puts  into  Kayin's 
mouth.  Let  us  go  to  the  field,  and  the  insertion  of 
these  or  similar  words  seems  justified  by  the  context.* 
If  Kayin's  crime  immediately  followed  his  rejection  by 
Yahweh,  the  object  of  the  invitation  may  have  been  to 
draw  Hebhel  away  from  the  altar,  where  the  violence 
intended  would  have  been  sacrilege  (Strack).  In  any 
case  they  were  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  family  when 
Kayin  assailed,  lit.  arose  against, \  Hebhel  his  brother 
and  killed  him. 

9.  As  in  the  case  of  the  first  transgression,  the  deed 
is  hardly  committed  before  Yahweh  appears  on  the  scene. 
Kayin,  however,  meets  the  accusation  implied  in  the 
question.  Where  %  is  Hebhel,  thy  brother  ?  not  with 
an  excuse,  but  with  a  falsehood.  Indeed,  he  supple- 
ments the  lie,  I  knovr  not,  with  a  gratuitous  display  of 
insolence  worthy  of  a  hardened  criminal,  Am  I  my 
brother's  keeper  ? 

The  only  change  that  seems  required  is  the  omission  of  the  last 
letter  of  nSI2n»  sifi^  thus  transforming  it  from  a  feminine  to  a 
masculine,  so  that  it  will  agree  with  its  predicate  y3"^»  ^y^^^g-  See 
the  Syriac  Version,  in  which  the  subjects  of  the  last  clause  are 
transposed. 

*  Tuch  supplies  //  after  "ittS'*1»  while  Bottcher  emends  by 
changing  this  verb  to  n!2t£'''1»  and  he  watched,  and  bS'  to,  to  ns» 
the  sign  of  the  definite  Accusative;  but  neither  of  these  sugges- 
tions has  found  much  favor.  More  attractive  is  Ball's  {Addenda) 
suggestion,  D^S'^I'  and  he  lay  in  wait. 

t  br»  with  Ball,  instead  of  the  bS'  to,  of  the  Massoretic  text. 

X  For  "S  read,  with  the  Samaritans,  TT^S-     So  Ball. 


i66  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [IV.  10-13 

10.  Here,  as  in  iii.  13,  Yahweh's  disapproval  first  takes 
the  form  of  a  question,  What  hast  thou  done  ?  then 
he  distinctly  charges  Kayin  with  the  crime  that  he  has 
committed,  The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  crieth 
to  me,  demanding  retribution. 

11.  Kayin  attempts  no  defence.  Yahweh  therefore 
at  once  proceeds  with  the  sentence,  Cursed  shalt  thou 
be  from  the  ground.  The  meaning  of  the  last  phrase 
is  disputed.  The  prominence  given  to  the  thought  of 
banishment  in  the  following  context  has  led  most  exe- 
getes  to  interpret  the  preposition  from  as  denoting  sep- 
aration (Dillmann)  ;  but  since,  according  to  12a,  the 
ground  is  actually  to  be  cursed  with  unfruitfulness  on 
Kayin's  account,  the  author  must  here  have  thought  of 
it  as  the  means  by  which  he  was  to  be  punished,  as  well 
as  the  place  from  which  in  punishment  he  was  to  be 
banished.  By  the  ground  that  hath  opened  its  mouth 
to  receive  thy  brother's  blood  is  meant  the  compara- 
tively fertile  region  in  which  the  crime  was  committed. 
See  w.  14  and  16. 

12.  The  twofold  nature  of  the  curse  is  now  explained. 
Of  the  ground  Yahweh  says,  it  shall  no  longer* 
jrield  thee  its  wealth,  lit.  strength  (Hos.  vii.  9),  as  if 
it  had  thus  far  been  normally  fruitful.  Comp.  iii.  17  f. 
Secondly,  and  partly  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  ob- 
taining a  subsistence  from  the  soil,  but  partly  in  obe- 
dience to  the  spur  of  conscience,  he  is  to  be  a  vT-anderer 
and  a  fugitive  up  and  down  in  the  earth. 

13.  The  prospect  that  these  words  disclose  to  Kayin 
fills  him  with  terror  ;  but,  instead  of  confessing  the  enor- 
mity of  his  guilt,  as  he  has  been  understood  by  trans- 
lators and  commentators  to  have  done,  he  merely  pro- 
tests against  the  severity  of  the   penalty  imposed  upon 

*  On  the  Jussive  r]Dn»  lit.  Ut  it  no  longer,  see  Ges.  §  109,  2,  b. 


IV.  13-15]  COMMENTS  167 

him.     My   punishment,    he   says    in    response   to  the 
divine  decree,  is  greater  than  I  can  bear. 

14.  His  version  of  the  sentence  omits  any  mention  of 
the  diminution  of  the  fruitfulness  of  the  earth.*  Nor 
does  he  seemingly  object  to  banishment  from  the  face 
of  the  ground,  the  cultivable  and  cultivated  region  in 
which  he  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  born  and  reared, 
although  it  implies  absence  from  Yahweh  as  well  as 
endless  unrest,  so  much  as  the  threatened  exposure  to 
the  vengeance  of  his  fellows.  His  pica  is.  Whosoever, 
the  first  one  who,  meeteth  me  "will  kill  me.  The 
most  brutal  men  are  often  the  most  cowardly.  The 
question,  Whom  did  Kayin  fear }  is  not  so  difficult  as 
has  sometimes  been  imagined.  The  answer  is  probably 
to  be  found  in  the  admission  that  the  Kayin  here  meant 
was  not  the  son  of  the  first  man,  but  belonged  to  a  later 
generation ;  in  other  words,  that  this  story  was  not  writ- 
ten for  its  present  setting. 

1 5.  Yahweh  admitted  Kayin's  plea  and  provided  against 
the  dreaded  result.  If  any  one  kill  Kayin,  he  decreed, 
he  (Kayin)  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold.  Comp.  Dill- 
mann.  He  also  appointed,  selected  and  ordained,  for 
Ka3rin,  in  his  interest  and  for  his  protection,  a  sign. 
This  sign  was  not  a  wonder  to  allay  Kayin's  fears,  lest  he 
should  himself  be  murdered  (Clarke),  but  a  warning  to 
those  whom  he  feared,  that  "whoever  met  him  should 
not  kill  him,  i.  r.,  to  prevent  any  one  who  met  him  from 
killing  him.  This,  according  to  some  early  authorities, 
was  a  miraculous  intervention  of  Yahweh  to  terrify  his 
assailant  {Bcr.  Rab.  105  f.).  A  more  probable  opinion  is 
that  it  was  a  mark  on  the  body,  perhaps  the  forehead, 
by  which  he  would  be  recognized  as  a  man  under  divine 

*  A  circumstance  which  may  indicate  that  12a  is  not  a  part  of 
the  orjrnnal  text. 


i68  THE    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM    [IV.  15-17 

protection.  Marks  of  this  sort  are  referred  to  Ex.  xiii. 
9  ;  Lev.  xix.  28  ;  Eze.  ix.  4  ff. ;  also  Rev.  xiii.  16  f. ;  etc. 
See  Stade,  ZA  JV,  1894,  301  ff. 

16.  Thus  furnished,  through  the  divine  clemency, 
K.Byin  -went  forth  from  the  presence  of  Yah-weh, 
and  the  region  under  Yahwch's  immediate  protection, 
and  dTvelt  in  the  land  of  Nodh.  The  expression 
dwelt  is  hardly  in  harmony  with  the  sentence  pronounced 
upon  Kayin,  to  the  effect  that  he  should  be  a  fugitive 
in  the  earth.  Hence  the  statement  of  which  it  is  a  part 
probably  belonged  originally,  not  to  the  preceding  story, 
but  with  vv.  17  ff.  This  leaves  the  meaning  of  the  name 
NodJi  unexplained,  the  author  by  w^hom  it  was  preserved 
saying  of  the  region  thus  designated  only  that  it  was 
eastward  of  Eden,  on  the  eastern  border  of  that  in 
which,  according  to  ii.  8,  the  garden  was  situated.  Comp. 
Boscawen,  BM,  92  f. 

The  story  of  the  first  murder  interrupted  that  of 
(2)  The  Earliest  Civilization  i^uv,  17-24).  The  lat- 
ter is  now  resumed.  17.  Kayin,  who,  according  to  v.  2, 
became  a  tiller  of  the  soil,  finally  took  a  "wife.  Where  he 
got  her,  the  author  seems  not  to  have  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  explain.  It  is  probably  to  be  taken  for  granted 
here  and  throughout  this  genealogy,  that  the  record  is 
either  necessarily  or  intentionally  incomplete.  Kayin's 
wife  bore  Hanokh.*     The  author  proceeds  to  say  that 

*  The  name  occurs  several  times  in  the  Old  Testament;  once  as 
that  of  a  son  of  Midian  (Gen.  xxv.  4).  It  is  therefore  hardly  safe 
to  say  that  its  oris^inal  signification  was  Instruction  or  Dedication. 
Cheyne  {EB\  art.  Cainites,  following^  Sayce  (//Z,  185),  identifies  it 
with  Unug  {Abode),  the  Akkadian  form  of  Uruk{\\^h.  ^Orekh),  the 
name  of  a  city  associated  with  the  Babylonian  as  well  as  the  bil)li- 
cal  Nimrodh,  the  date  of  whose  origin  belon!::;s  to  the  earliest  period 
in  the  history  of  Mesopotamian  civilization.  See  Die.  Bib.  art. 
Erech;  Frd.  Dclitzsch,  WLP,  221  ff. 


IV.  17,  1 8]  COMMENTS  169 

he,  I  lanokh,  was  the  builder  of  a  city ;  /.  c,  the  first  to 
ci\Lcagc  in  such  an  enterprise  ;  and  that  he  called  it  after 
his  own  *  name  Hanokh.  The  difficulty  in  understand- 
ing the  statement  that  a  son  of  Kayin  was  the  founder  of 
a  city  is  relieved  by  recalling  that  the  Hebrew  city  was 
not  necessarily  a  large  enclosure  (xix.  20),  and  that  origi- 
nally there  was  no  connection  between  this  passage  and 
the  story  of  the  fratricide. 

18.  The  next  four  names  in  the  genealogy  are  mere 
links  connecting  the  head  of  the  line  with  later  and  more 
important  descendants.  To  Hanokh  was  born  'Iradh,t 
who  begot  Mehiyya'eljJ  who  in  turn  begot  Methu- 
sha'el,§  the  father  of  Lemekh.  || 

*  The  Massoretic  text  has  133  Ctt?D,  after  his  son's  name^  re- 
quiring that  Kayin  be  made  the  subject  of  both  verbs.  This,  how- 
ever, is  awkward  and  unlike  the  author  of  the  passage.  It  is  there- 
fore probable  that  the  original  text  had  Win,  he  {was),  instead  of, 
or  "^ISn,  Hanokh,  after  "^rr^l  and  was,  and  that,  when  this  reading 
was  wittingly  or  unwittingly  changed,  the  word  p,  son,  was  inserted 
to  give  the  whole  the  desired  or  supposed  import.  See  Budde, 
BC/,  i2off. ;  comp.  Dillmann. 

t  The  derivation  of  this  name  is  in  dispute.  If  related  to  T1"!r» 
wild  ass,  it  would  naturally  denote  swiftness  or  shyness.  Holz- 
inger  suggests  a  connection  with  ni?,  'Aradh,  a  city  of  southern 
Judah  (Jud.  i.  16).  If,  however,  Hanokh  represents  Uruk,  it  is 
certainly  possible  that,  as  Sayce  {HL,  185  f.)  also  maintains,  'Iradh 
is  only  another  form  of  Eridu,  the  name  of  another  Babylonian  city 
as  ancient  as  it  was  famous.     Comp.  Cheyne,  EB,  art.  Cainites. 

X  The  name  of  the  son  of  'Iradh  appears  in  two  slightly  different 
forms,  bw* inn  and  bs^"^nD,  in  this  connection.  Of  the  two  Budde 
{BU,  125  ff.)  seems  to  have  shown  that  the  latter,  the  pronunciation 

§  This  name  is  capable  of  two  interpretations.  If  tr>  j-//<z,  be 
treated  as  a  relative,  as  in  Assyrian,  it  will  mean  vian  of  God : 

II  The  name  Lemekh  finds  no  explanation  in  the  Hebrew  vo- 
cabulary.    Budde  {BU,  102,  129)  conjectures  that  it  must  have  some 


I70  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM        IV.  19 

19.  This  Lemekh  is  important  for  his  own  sake,  being 
the  first  polygamist.  He  had  tTvo  "wives.  The  fact  is 
reported  without  apparent  disapproval.  Hence  it  is  safer 
to  suppose  that,  originally  at  any  rate,  it  was  intended  to 
serve  as  an  indication  of  material  progress  than  of  moral 
deterioration  (Dillmann).  The  names  of  his  wives  were 
'Adhah,  according  to  xxxvi.  2  that  of  one  of  the  wives  of 
Esau  (com p.  xxvi.  34),  and  Sillah.* 

of  which  he  changes  from  M^hiyya'el  to  MahyVel,  God  giveth  life, 
is  the  preferable  reading.  If,  however,  the  genealogy  is  really  an- 
cient, this  form,  being  good  Hebrew,  must  be  either  a  translation 
or  a  corruption  of  the  original  name.  The  conjecture  that  the  form 
here  found  is  a  mistake  for  the  bsbbn72,  M^JflaVel  of  v.  12 
(Lagarde),  and  the  latter  a  corruption  of  the  Assyrian  compound 
Aj)iil-ili,  vian  0/  God  (Cheyne),  can  hardly  be  called  satisfactory. 
See  further  Ball,  SBOT,  Notes. 

otherwise  it  must  be  rendered  man  of  desire.  Cheyne  and  others, 
on  the  evidence  of  the  Greek  Version,  pronounce  it  a  corruption  of 
nbtnn!2,  Metkushelah  (v.  21),  in  which  they  see  the  Hebraised 
form  of  the  Assyrian  compound  Mittii-sharrahi,  man  of  the  gigantic 
one,  the  equivalent  of  Amil-Sin  (Berosus,  Amempsinos),  7nafi  of 
Sin,  the  name  of  one  of  the  antediluvian  kings  of  Babylonian  my- 
thology. See  Cheyne,  EB,  art.  Cainites j  Lenormant,  BH,  220. 
The  most  attractive  feature  of  this  last  view  is  that  Sin,  the  Moon, 
was  the  patron  deity  of  'Ur  and  Haran.     See  Jastrow,  RBA,  76. 

connection  with  arms  or  violence.  Sayce  and  others  connect  it 
with  La?nga,  a  non-Semitic  title  of  the  god  Sin,  of  which  Ubarra 
in  Ubarra-Tutu,  servant  of  Marduk,  the  name  of  another  king  of 
the  antediluvian  period  (Berosus,  Obartcs),  is  the  equivalent.  See 
Sayce,  HL,  186;  Lenormant,  BH,  220;  Ball,  SBOT,  Azotes. 

*  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  discover  in  these  names  a 
mythical  significance  (Lenormant,  BH,  188  ff.);  but  they  are  so 
easily  explained  as  personifications  of  qualities  valued  in  women, 
that  this  has  now  become  the  favorite  opinion.  As  Hebrew  appel- 
latives they  would  be  rendered  respectively  Beauty  and  Shadow. 
Sec  Bacthgcn,  BSR,  149 ff.;  Cheyne,  EB,  art.  Cainites. 


IV.  20,  21]  COMMENTS  171 

20.  'Adhah  bore  her  husband  at  least  two  sons.  The 
name  of  the  first  mentioned  was  Yabhal.*  He  was  the 
father,  the  first  to  engage  in  such  an  occupation,  of 
every  f  one  that  dwelleth  in  tents  Tvith  cattle,  \ 
wandering  from  place  to  place  with  the  flocks  and  herds 
in  which  his  wealth  consists.  Yabhal,  therefore,  was  not 
only  the  first  shepherd,  but  the  first  nomad.  Compare 
vv.  2  and  12.  Moreover,  the  nomadic  life  here  appears 
to  be  perfectly  legitimate  and  honorable. 

21.  A  brother  of  Yabhal,  named  Yubhal,§  became 
the  father  of  every  one  that  handleth  the  lyre  and 
the  pipe.  The  former  was  the  simplest,  commonest, 
and  therefore  doubtless  the  oldest,  stringed  instrument  in 
use  among  the  Hebrews.  It  was  played  by  all  classes 
and  on  all  occasions.  See  xxxi.  27  ;  i  Sam.  x.  5  (Eng. 
harp).  It  was  the  instrument  that  David  played  with 
his  recognized  skill  (i   Sam.  xvi.  16  ff.).     See  Benziger, 

*  The  word  occurs  (Isa.  xxx.  25)  in  the  sense  of  conduit,  canal, 
but  here  it  seems  to  be  an  equivalent  of  Hcbhel,  Shepherd.  The 
Greek  Version  has  Yobel,  the  Hebrew  of  which  means  ram^  i.  e., 
the  leader  of  the  flock. 

t  The  word  b^  is  wanting  in  the  Massoretic  text,  but,  being  used 
in  V.  21,  should  without  doubt  be  supplied  in  this,  a  precisely  simi- 
lar connection. 

X  This  is  the  proper  rendering,  whether  the  correct  text  be 
nsp^l  bnS,  lit.  tent  and  cattle,  or,  as  Ball  (comp.  Addenda),  fol- 
lowing 2  Chr.  xiv.  14/15  and  the  Greek  Version,  prefers  to  read, 
n3P^  "^brrS,  lit.  tents  of  cattle.  On  the  construction,  see  Ges. 
§117,  4,  R4,  c. 

§  This  word  also  occurs  (Jer.  xvii.  8)  in  the  sense  of  stream. 
Dillmann  suf::gests  that  its  appropriateness  as  the  name  of  a  mu- 
sician is  explained  by  a  connection  with  vDV,  sometimes  used  in 
the  sense  of  j-atns  horn  (Ex.  xix.  13).  Since,  however,  the  original 
meaning  of  the  latter  was  ram  (Jos.  vi.  5)  his  explanation  seems 
defective.  A  better  is  that  it  is  an  arbitrary  variation  on  the  pre- 
ceding name  to  denote  a  different,  but  related,  occupation.  See 
Baethgen,  BSR,  149;  comp.  Cheyne,  EB,  art.  Cainites. 


172  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [IV.  21,  22 

HA,  274  ff.  ;  Die.  Bib.  art.  Music,  The  latter  of  the  in- 
struments named  was  probably  a  correspondingly  simple 
wind  instrument,  perhaps  the  Pan's  pipe.  See  Benziger, 
HAy  276 ;  Riehm,  NBA,  art.  Ahisik.  Thus,  according 
to  the  Hebrews,  the  first  musician,  though  not  himself  a 
shepherd,  was  a  brother  to  the  first  to  adopt  the  pastoral 
calling. 

22.  Sillah  also  bore  Lemekh  a  son,  Tubhal ;  of  whom 
the  author  seems  to  have  intended  to  say,  that  he  -was 
the  father  of  every  one  that  worketh  copper  and 
iron,*  in  other  words,  the  first  metallurgist.  This  Tu- 
bhal had  a  sister,  whose  name,  like  that  of  the  Ammon- 
itess,  Rehoboam's  mother  (i  Kgs.  xiv.  21), was  Na'amah-f 
She  seems  to  have  no  function  except  to  make  the  num- 
ber of  children  assigned  to  Sillah  equal  to  that  of  her 
rival's  family.     For  the  legends  with  which  the  Hebrews 

*  The  Massoretic  text  has  Tiibhal Kayin  a  smith  every  one,  etc., 
which  is  clearly  not  the  original  reading.  The  analogy  of  the 
statements  respecting  Yabhal  and  Yubhal  requires  >nS  TT^T^  Sin, 
he  was  the  father  of,  in  this  case  also.  The  Greek  Version,  which 
has  KoX  ^v  instead  of  kohv,  points  in  the  same  direction.  The  word 
V2^^y  smith,  is  probably  a  marginal  gloss  to  tCin,  whose  present 
position  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  it  is  also  a  synonym  of  'J'^r?, 
or,  at  any  rate,  of  the  Aramaic  ''D'^p.  The  objection  by  Budde 
{BU,  139),  that  trtob  is  too  rare  a  word  for  a  gloss,  loses  its  force 
when  one  recalls  that,  although  it  is  less  frequent  than  K^in  in  the 
same  sense  in  Hebrew,  the  latter  is  not  used  in  this  sense  in 
Aramaic,  the  language  of  the  later  Hebrews,  while  the  former  is 
common  to  the  two  dialects.  As  for  the  name  Tubhal,  it  also 
seems  to  be  a  variation  upon  Yabhal,  but,  if  it  is,  its  precise  form 
may  have  been  determined  by  that  of  the  name  of  a  tribe,  the 
Tibarenians,  southeast  of  the  Black  Sea  (x.  2),  who  supplied  Tyre 
with  implements  in  copper  or  bronze  (Eze.  xxvii.  13). 

t  In  Jos.  XV.  41,  this  name,  which  mQ^ns,  pleasant,  is  given  to  a 
place  in  southern  Judah.  See  also  No'omi  and  A'a'aman.  This 
is  evidently  another  case  of  the  same  sort  as  those  of  'Adhah  and 
.Sillah.     See  Bacthgcn,  BSR,  150. 


IV.  23]  COMMENTS  173 

siipplcnicntcd   their  lack   of  knowledge  respecting  her, 
sec  Lcnorm:int,  BlI,  204  ff. 

23.  There  follows  a  song  put  into  the  mouth  of  Le- 
mekh.  The  close  connection  between  it  and  the  account 
of  the  origin  of  metallurgy  naturally  gave  rise  to  the 
supposition  that  it  was  intended  to  commemorate  the 
discovery  by  Tubhal  of  the  art  of  manufacturing  weapons 
from  the  metal  in  which  he  wrought  (Herder).  If,  how- 
ever, it  were  a  sword-song,  Lemekh  should  have  been  the 
inventor  of  the  sword  as  well  as  the  author  of  the  song.* 
When  interpreted,  as  it  must  be,  by  itself,  it  will  be 
found  to  voice  the  fierce  passions  and  the  crude  notions 
of  justice  that  the  lex  talioiiis  (Ex.  xxi.  12  ff.  ;  Deu,  xix, 
I  ff.  ;  Num.  XXXV.  9  ff.)  was  intended  to  regulate.  In 
form  it  consists  of  three  distichs,  each  of  which  illustrates 
the  most  striking  feature  of  Hebrew  poetry,  parallelism. 
In  the  first,  tho  object  of  which  is  t©  secure  the  atten- 
tion of  those  addressed,  'Adhah  and  SiUah  is  repeated 
in  wives  of  Lemekhf,  and  hear  %  my  voice  in  give 
ear  to  my  speech.  The  members  of  a  so-called  synony- 
mous parallelism,  however,  are  not  always  perfectly  equiv- 
alent. Hence  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the 
victim  of  Lcmekh's  vengeance  is  the  same  person  in  both 
cases.  His  boast  is  that  he  slays  a  man,  either  the  one 
who  has  injured  him  or  a  relative,  if  he  is  wounded, 
and  a  boy  belonging  to  the  family  of  the  offender  for  a 

*  Budde  {BU,  139  ff.)  contends  that  this  was  the  original  sense 
of  the  passage,  and  emends  the  text  to  make  it  correspond  to  his 
theory  ;  omitting  22b,  and,  for  V^  ti^tib  X"\)^  Kayin  a  smith  all, 
substituting  "Jtib  '^rT'l,  afid  Lemekh  was,  or,  if  22b  must  be  re- 
tained, inserting  't\  Itsb  "^rf^l  after  it. 

t  Compare  Holzinger,  who  attaches  the  former  phrase  to  the 
superscription,  so  that  the  song  is  made  to  begin.  Hear  my  voice^ 
etc. 

}  On  the  form  y^XLW  see  Ges.  §  46,  2,  R  3. 


174  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [IV.  23,24 

Tvale,  a  less  serious  injury.  In  both*  cases  the  harm 
he  inflicts  far  exceeds  that  which  he  himself  has  suf- 
fered. 

24.  The  ratio,  death  for  a  blow,  Lemckh  finally  puts 
into  a  numerical  form.  If,  he  says,  Kayin,  the  first  of 
the  race  to  bear  a  personal  name,  was  avenged,  or 
avenged  himself,!  sevenfold,  then  shall  Lemekh  be 
seventy  and  seven  times,  as  fully  as  possible.  J  See 
Mat.  xviii.  22. 

The  above  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  vv.  17-24 
apart  from  their  context.  When,  however,  they  are 
viewed  as  a  part  of  the  larger  whole  to  which  they  be- 
long, they  cease  to  be  merely  a  picture  of  the  social 
and  industrial  activities  of  the  earliest  ages,  and,  so  re- 
pulsive is  Lemekh's  frank  brutality,  according  to  the 
author  to  whom  they  owe  their  present  position,  mark  a 
stage  in  the  progress  of  the  race  in  violence  and  wick- 
edness. The  modern  reader,  who  realizes  the  twofold 
significance  of  the  passage,  will  find  in  its  history  an 
illustration  of  the  rapidity  with  which  the  Hebrews  under 
the  tuition  of  the  prophets  developed  in  the  direction  of 
morality.  For  other  cases  of  the  same  kind,  see  vi.  i  ff. 
and  ix.  20  ff . 

Having  thus  followed  the  line  of  Kayin  until  it  be- 

*  On  the  rendering  given  to  the  verb,  see  Ges.  §  107,  2,  c.  On 
the  meaning  of  *Tb"*»  sometimes  improperly  translated  young  inafi, 
see  2  Kgs.  ii.  23  f. 

t  The  reflexive  idea  would  properly  be  expressed  by  np"!  rather 
than  cp'»'  Hence  Budde  {BU,  134)  emends  the  text  by  substitut- 
ing the  former  for  the  latter. 

X  The  reference  to  Kayin  at  first  sight  seems  to  argue  that  the 
chapter  thus  far  is  a  unit ;  but  the  Kayin  of  this  song,  though  no 
match  for  Lemekh  in  the  lattcr's  estimation,  is  a  heroic  figure,  and 
therefore  the  concejjtion  of  another  than  the  author  of  the  story  of 
the  fratricide. 


IV.  25]  COMMENTS  175 

came  alienated  from  God,  the  sacred  historian   returns 

to  his  starting  -  point    with   the   first   pair,    and   thence 

traces 

b.  The  Line  of  Sheth  (iv.  25-v.  32). 

He  seems  to  have  had  at  his  hand  two  complete 
accounts  of  Sheth  and  his  descendants.  One  of  these, 
for  obvious  reasons,  he  preserved  entire.  The  one  best 
suited  to  his  purpose,  however,  entirely  ignored  both 
Kayin  and  Hebhel.  To  forestall  the  natural  effect  of 
this  omission,  he  inserted 

(i)  A  Genealogical  Fragment  (iv.  25  f.),  which  is 
supposed  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  (to  him)  less  valua- 
ble genealogy.*    For  other  remnants  of  it,  see  chapter  v. 

25.  After  the  murder  of  Hebhel  the  man  f  knew 
his  wife,J  again.     Her  third  son  she  §  called  Sheth, 

*  This  second  genealoo^y,  which  had  the  same  number  of  names 
as  the  first,  in  its  original  form  is  attributed  to  J^;  the  modifica- 
tions that  appear  in  the  fragment  here  preserved,  to  the  editor  by 
whom  the  story  of  the  fratricide  was  inserted  (Cornill,  EA  T,  43  f. ; 
Oxford  Hex.  ii.  7).  On  the  source  of  the  original  there  are  two 
principal  theories.  The  more  prevalent  is  that  it  was  constructed 
from  the  Kayinite  genealogy  by  the  insertion  of  the  names  of 
Sheth  and'Enosh(Budde,  BCI,  175  ff.).  Stade  {ZA  IV,  1894,  276  ff.), 
however,  contends  that  these  two  names  originally  belonged  to  the 
Kayinite  genealogy,  and  that  therefore  the  latter,  in  the  form  in 
which  it  has  been  preserved,  was  produced  by  their  removal.  See 
also  Steuernagel,  D/,  269;  comp.  Lenormant,  B//,  iS^fi. 

t  This  is  the  reading  that  seems  to  be  required  by  the  analogy 
of  ii.  15  and  iii.  22  and  24,  passages  closely  related  to  this  verse. 
The  Massoretic  text  has  'Adharn.     See  Budde,  BU^  135,  162  f. 

X  Her  name  appears  in  the  Greek  and  the  Syriac  Version  ;  also 
the  clause,  and  she  conceived.  The  Greek  Version  further  inserts 
saying  before  Hawwah's  speech;  but  this  is  perhaps  only  a  free 
rendering  for  the  "^2,  for,  of  the  original,  which  is  not  otherwise 
translated.  For  Tir,  again,  on  the  other  hand,  it  presents  no 
equivalent. 

§  For  S~ipm,  and  she  called,  the  Samaritans  read  S'^jTI,  and  he 
called. 


176  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [!V.  25,  26 

explaining  the  name  by  saying,  God,  not  Yahweh  (see 
V.  26),  hath  set  ^  me  other  offspring  instead  of  He- 
bhel.  lliese  words  make  the  clause,  since  Kayin  hath 
killed  him,  by  the  same  or  a  later  hand,  an  unnecessary 
amplification.     Comp.  Delitzsch. 

26.  The  complete  genealogy  might  have  been  intro- 
duced without  further  preliminaries.  A  second  section 
from  the  parallel  account,  however,  is  added,  probably 
for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  interesting  statement 
with  which  it  closes,  to  the  effect  that  'Enosh.f  the  son 
of  Sheth,  was  the  first  %  to  call  on  the  name  of  Yah- 
weh. Elsewhere  (xii.  8;  xiii.  4;  xxi.  33  ;  xxvi.  25;  Ex. 
xxxiv.  5)  to  call  by  the  name  of  Yahweh  means  to  wor- 
ship him.  This,  however,  can  hardly  be  its  meaning 
in  the  present  passage.  Its  actual  significance  may  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that,  in  the  preceding  verse,  pains 
is  taken  to  avoid  the  use  of  the  name  Yahweh.  In  other 
words,  it  means  that,  according  to  the  author  here  repre- 
sented, this  divine  name  was  first  used  in  the  time  of 
'Enosh.  Comp.  Dillmann.  For  other  views  on  the  sub- 
ject, see  Ex.  iii.  14  f.  and  vi.  2  f.§ 

*  Hebrew  ntT,  shath,  a  word-play  like  that  in  v.  i.  See  also 
V.  29.     The  real  significance  of  the  name  is  unknown. 

f  Like  ''Adham  originally  an  appellative  for  7Ha?i,  but  mostly 
poetical.     See  Ps.  viii.  5. 

X  The  Massoretic  text  has  bmn  TS,  then  was  beo^nn,  but  the 
analogy  of  x.  8  requires  \>r\T\  Sin,  he  bei^an.  See  also  the  Greek 
and  Samaritan  readings,  which,  though  themselves  faulty,  indicate 
what  must  have  been  the  original  phraseology. 

§  The  only  passage  that  can  be  cited  against  the  interpretation 
here  given  is  7/.  i,  where  the  name  Yahweh  is  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Hawwah  ;  but,  if  it  is  from  J^,  Yahweh  is  perfectly  in  place  in 
it,  and  if  it  is  from  the  same  author  as  these  last  verses,  the  read- 
ing should  undoubtedly  be  God^  as  in  the  Greek  Version.  Steuer- 
nagel's  theory  {DJ,  269),  that  vv.  25  f.  originally  preceded  v.  I, 
furnishes  a  third  alternative. 


V.  1-3]  COMMENTS  177 

(2)  The  Complete  Genealogy  (v.),  for  which  the  frag- 
ment just  discussed  was  intended  to  prepare  the  way,  was 
doubtless  preferred  because,  although  it  was  not  so  inter- 
esting to  the  casual  reader,  it  furnished  the  materials  for 
a  chronology  of  the  earliest  period  of  the  world's  history. 

1.  In  the  document  from  which  it  was  taken  it  consti- 
tuted a  separate  book  with  a  title  of  its  own,  This  is  the 
Book  of  the  Generations  of  Adham.  This  title  be- 
trays the  author  of  the  table,  and  the  statement  that, 
when  God  created  men,  he  made  them  in  the  like- 
ness of  God,  confirms  the  first  impression,  viz.,  that  the 
passage  came  from  the  same  source  as  the  first  account 
of  creation,  the  so-called  Priestly  narrative.  See  ii.  4 ; 
i.  26  f. 

2.  For  the  phrase  male  and  female,  see  i.  27.  The 
statement  that  God  blessed  them  refers  to  i.  28  f.,  and 
that  concerning  the  name  given  to  them,  Man,  to  i.  26. 

3.  The  common  term,  in  Hebrew  'AdJia^n,  which 
originally  included  both  man  and  woman,  is  now  first 
applied  as  a  proper  name  to  the  first  man.  When  he  had 
lived  a  hundred  and  thirty  years,  he  begot  a  child.* 
It  is  plain  enough  from  these  words  that  the  author  of 
the  genealogy  intended  to  represent  this  child  as  'Ad- 
ham's  firstborn.  His  meaning  is  rendered  unmistakable 
by  the  addition  of  in  his  own  likeness  and  after  his 
0"wn  image,  an  explanation  which  would  naturally  ac- 
company a  description  of  the  first  birth,  but  which  would 
be  superfluous  in  any  subsequent  case.  This,  however, 
is  not  the  entire  significance  of  the  expression.  The 
image  of  'Adham  can  only  mean  likeness  to  the  God-like 
nature  with  which  he  was  endowed  at  his  creation  (i.  27). 
The  author  therefore  ignores,  not  only  Kayin  and  Hebhel, 

*  On  the  omission  of  the  object,  which  Ball  supplies,  see  Ges. 
§  117,  I,  R  5- 


1 78  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [V.  4,  5 

but  the  story  of  the  Fall  and  its  consequences.  In  other 
words,  as  has  already  been  intimated,  this  fifth  chapter  is 
the  continuation  of  ii.  3. 

4.  The  interval  between  the  creation  of  'Adham  and  the 
birth  of  his  first  child  is  a  long  one,  but  it  is  not  out  of 
proportion  to  the  rest  of  his  life,  for  he  lived*  after 
begetting  his  firstborn  no  fewer  than  eight  hundred 
years. 

5.  The  notice  of  'Adham  closes  with  the  total  of  the 
years  of  his  life.  It  makes  so  vast  a  period  that  many 
ardent  defenders  of  the  Scriptures  have  felt  forced  to 
interpret  the  terms  used  as  having  other  than  their  nat- 
ural and  obvious  meanings.  Thus,  e.  g.,  it  has  been  pro- 
posed to  reckon  the  year  here  and  elsewhere  in  this 
chapter  as  a  period  of  less  than  twelve  months. f  This 
method,  however,  creates  as  serious  difficulties  as  it  re- 
moves :  for  (/),  unless  unwarrantable  violence  is  done  to 
the  text,  some  of  the  patriarchs  are  thus  made  to  beget 
children  before  they  reach  the  age  for  paternity  ;  and  {2) 
the  period  from  'Adham  to  Noah,  too  short  when  the  fig- 
ures are  given  their  largest  value,  is  thus  abbreviated  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  be  absolutely  insignificant.  Finally, 
any  such  method  of  interpretation  is  forbidden  by  the  fact 

*  The  Massoretic  text  has  C"TS  "^^"^  Vn''\  And  the  days  of  'Ad- 
ham were;  but  the  analogy  of  vv.  7,  10,  etc.,  requires  CTN  TT^"), 
And  'Adham  livedo  and  this  is  the  reading  of  the  Arabic,  and 
some  copies  of  the  Syriac,  Version. 

t  The  following  schemes  are  cited  merely  as  curiosities  :  Hens. 
Icr  {BPG,  280  ff.)  claims  that  a  year  means  three  months  from 
Adam  to  Abraham,  eiglit  from  Isaac  to  Joseph,  and  not  until  after 
the  time  of  Joseph  twelve.  Rask's  scheme  {ZHT,  1836,  19!?.) 
is  still  more  complicated,  giving  to  the  year  the  value  of  one  month 
from  Adam  to  Noah,  two  from  Shem  to  Serug,  four  from  Nahor 
to  Terah,  six  from  Abraham  to  Amram,  and  twelve  in  and  after 
the  time  of  Moses. 


V.  5]  COMMENTS  179 

that,  in  his  account  of  the  Flood,  the  author  of  the  gene- 
alogy clearly  teaches  that  the  year  of  this  early  period 
consisted  of  twelve  months.  See  especially  viii.  5  ff. 
There  is  equally  little  to  be  said  for  the  theory  that  the 
list  of  names  is  incomplete,  and  that  therefore  the  num- 
bers given  do  not  measure  the  lives  of  individuals  but  of 
groups  of  persons  (Delitzsch)  ;  or  that  the  names  repre- 
sent tribes  or  dynasties  of  the  antediluvian  period  (Craw- 
ford). The  construction  of  the  table  is  such  as  to  show 
that  it  still  has  as  many  names  as  it  ever  contained,*  and 
that  each  of  these  names  was  intended  to  designate  an 
individual.!  It  must  therefore  be  admitted  that  the  au- 
thor intended  to  say,  and  does  say,  that  there  were  ten 
generations,  neither  more  nor  fewer,  from  'Adham  to 
Noah,  and  that  each  of  the  persons  representing  them 
actually  lived  the  given  number  of  years.  The  first  lived 
nine  hundred  and  thirty  years.  His  longevity,  sur- 
prising in  itself,  becomes  additionally  troublesome  if  one 
attempt  to  harmonize  it  with  the  sentence  pronounced 
upon  him  on  his  expulsion  from  Paradise  (iii.  19).  The 
fact  that,  as  has  already  been  noted,  this  author  ignores 
the  Fall  relieves  the  latter  difficulty,  at  the  same  time 
exposing  the  incorrectness  of  interpreting  then  he  died 
here  and  elsewhere  in  this  chapter  as  "a  standing  de- 
monstration of  the  effect  of  disobedience  "  (Murphy).  It 
is  not  death,  but  an  untimely  death,  that  is  here  regarded 
as  penal. 

6.    The  age  at  which  Sheth  begot  his  firstborn  was 

*  Note  the  closeness  of  the  articulation ;  also  its  conformity  to 
the  table  in  chapter  xi.,  where,  'Abhram  included,  there  are  also 
just  ten  names. 

t  The  theory  that  the  names  represent  tribes,  etc,  betrays  its 
inadequacy  as  soon  as  one  asks  what  is  meant  by  the  division  into 
two  components  of  the  number  of  years  assigned  to  each  of  them, 
and  what  by  the  sons  and  daughters  who  in  each  case  follow  the 
firstborn. 


i8o  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [V.  6-9 

a  hundred  and  five  years,  or  twenty-five  years  earlier 
than  his  father  begot  him.  Nor  does  this  fact  stand 
alone.  In  the  next  three  cases  the  age  at  which  the  first 
son  is  begotten  becomes  earlier  and  earlier,  and  originally 
the  first  nine  cases  formed  a  nearly  unbroken  diminishing 
series.*     See  below. 

8.  The  same  is  true  of  the  totals,  although  in  the 
present  text  the  series  is  three  times  interrupted  by  an 
increase.  See  below.  Thus,  all  the  days  of  Sheth 
"were  only  nine  hundred  and  t"welve  years. 

9.  The  name  Kenan  recalls  Kayin,  but  the  similarity 
between  them  would  hardly  have  attracted  attention  if 
there  were  no  other  or  clearer  parallels  between  this 
genealogy  and  that  of  the  fourth  chapter.  The  fact  is 
that  all  the  names  of  the  latter  reappear  here,  two  besides 
'Adham  in  the  same,  the  rest  in  more  or  less  modified 
forms.  The  following  table  shows  to  what  extent  they 
agree  or  differ  either  in  form  or  order : 

Chapter  IV.  Chapter  V. 

Kayin  Kenan 

Hanokh^-^^.^^^  ^^^Mahalal'el 

'iradh  ^^^X^^  Yeredh 
Mehiyya'el^^'"^  ^"^Hanokh 
Methusha'el  Methushelah 

Lemekh  Lemekh 

The  similarity  between  the  two  lists  is  best  explained  by 
supposing  that  one  of  them  is  based  on  the  other.  The 
prevalent  opinion,  therefore,  is  that  the  names  of  the 
second,  since  they  belong  to  a  comparatively  late  work, 
so  far  as  they  differ  in  form  or  order,  are  more  or  less 
arbitrary  variations   upon  those  of  the  first.*      Comp. 

*  The  chanf]^es  may  have  been  made  by  the  author  of  this  chap- 
ter (P),  or  he  may  have  found  them  already  made  in  the  genealogy, 
antedating  his  own,  of  which  iv.  25  f.  (J^)  was  the  beginning. 


V.  9- 1 9]  COMMENTS  1 8 1 

Delitzsch ;  also  Lcnormant,  HB,  185  f.  This  being  the 
case,  it  is  more  probable  that  Kenan  contains  a  subtle 
reference  to  iv.  17  than  that  it  connects  the  son  of  'Enosh 
with  a  Sabean  divinity  (llolzinger).* 

12.  In  the  Kayinite  genealogy  the  next  name  in  order 
was  that  of  Hanokh  (iv.  17).  In  this  it  is  Mahalal'el. 
Thus,  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  a  variation  upon 
Mehiyya'el,  the  son  takes  the  place  of  the  father  of  'Iradh 
(Yeredh).  By  this  change  the  fifth  name  (Praise-of-God) 
is  made  to  suggest  that  the  first  half  of  the  antediluvian 
period  was  characterized  by  godliness,  while  that  of 
Hanokh,  as  will  appear,  in  the  seventh  place  furnishes 
the  exception  to  a  contrary  rule  for  the  last  half  of  the 
period,  t 

15.  The  firstborn  of  Mahalal'el  was  Yeredh,  whose 
name,  lit.  Dcsccjity\  indicates  that  he,  the  first  in  the  sec- 
ond half  of  the  list,  marked  a  turning-point,  the  beginning 
of  decadence  in  the  history  of  mankind. 

18.  In  the  present  text  the  evidence  of  the  name 
is  unsupported.  When,  however,  as  it  still  does  in  the 
Samaritan  reading,  the  record  said  that  Yeredh  begot 
his  eldest  son  at  the  age  of  sixty-two,  instead  of  a  hun- 
dred and  sixty-two  years,  and  a  computation  based 
on  these  and  corresponding  figures  showed  that  he,  as 
well  as  Methushelah  and  Lemekh,  perished  in  the  Flood, 
there  could  be  no  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  table 
meant  to  represent  him  as  a  sinner.     Comp.  Dillmann. 

19.  The  remnant  of  Yeredh's  years,  according  to  the 
present  text,  was  eight  hundred,  for  which  the  Samari- 
tans read  seven  hundred  and  eighty-five. 

*  The  idea  is  that  the  author  may  have  had  yi^)  {kana?i\  whence 
]P  {kejt),  ticst^  in  mind.     Comp.  Bottchcr,  §  474,  7. 

t  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  significance  of  the  names  and 
numbers  of  this  table,  see  Budde,  BU^  93  ff. 

X  From  l~l^,  go  down. 


i82  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [V.  20-24 

20.  The  result  of  the  adoption  of  the  Samaritan  read- 
ing is  the  reduction  of  the  length  of  Yeredh's  life  from 
nine  hundred  and  sixty-tTVO  to  eight  hundred  and 
forty-seven  years.  In  other  words,  instead  of  being 
longer,  it  becomes  considerably  shorter,  than  that  of  any 
of  his  progenitors,  being  cut  short,  as  above  intimated, 
by  the  Flood.  These  figures  embody  the  author's  idea 
of  the  consequences  of  the  decadence  of  which  Yeredh 
is  the  first  representative. 

21.  Hanokh  begot  his  eldest  at  the  normal  age  of 
sixty-five. 

22.  His  subsequent  life  was  brief,  but,  lest  the  reader 
should  infer  from  this  fact  that  he  was  particularly  wicked, 
it  is  distinctly  stated  in  this  connection  that  he  walked 
■with  God,*  lived  in  constant  harmony  with  the  divine 
will  (vi.  9),  those  three  hundred,  and  probably  the  pre- 
ceding years. 

23.  The  number  three  hundred  and  sixty-five,  re- 
presenting the  length  of  Hanokh's  life,  has  its  signifi- 
cance, but  in  this  connection  it  can  hardly  have  been 
interpreted  as  betraying  a  connection  between  the  patri- 
arch and  a  solar  divinity  (Lenormant,  BH,  253  ff.).  It 
is  probable  that  the  author,  both  by  giving  him  the  sev- 
enth place  (Jude  14)  and  assigning  him  the  same  number 
of  years  as  there  are  days  in  the  year,  desired  to  indicate 
that,  brief  as  was  his  life,  it  was  still  in  a  sense  complete. 
See  viii.  14,  according  to  which  the  Flood  lasted  three 
hundred  and  sixty-five  days.f 

24.  Hanokh  was  the  first  to  finish  his  earthly  life,  but 

*  The  unnaturalness  as  well  as  the  ambiguity  of  this  expression 
seems  to  warrant  the  belief  that  in  this  first  instance  it  has  been 
substituted  for  the  regular  formula  lived.     See  Budde,  BU,  170  ff. 

t  For  >n''\  the  singular,  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  read  with 
the  Samaritans  Vn**"),  the  plural.     See  also  2/.  31. 


V.  24-26]  COMMENTS  183 

he  did  not  die.  While  he  walked  with  God  he  "was 
not,  having  suddenly  disappeared  from  the  midst  of  his 
fellows.  His  disappearance  is  explained  by  the  brief 
statement  that  God  had  taken  him  ;  the  idea  being 
that,  as  a  reward  for  his  uncommon  piety,  the  patriarch 
was  graciously  delivered  from  the  corruption  of  his  time 
and  translated,  as  Elijah  was  afterward  (2  Kgs.  ii.  11), 
to  the  immediate  society  of  the  Deity.  See  i.  26 ;  comp. 
Delitzsch.  The  location  of  the  divine  abode  is  not  given, 
but,  wherever  it  was,  it  is  evident  that  the  author  thought 
of  it,  not  as  a  good  that  all  men  had  hopelessly  lost,  but 
as  one  that  some  at  least  might  by  their  virtues  gain. 
Comp.  iii.  24.  For  the  details  with  which  the  Jewish 
imagination  has  enriched  this  scanty  record,  see  the  Book 
of  Enoch.* 

25.  The  age  of  Methushelah  when  his  first  son  was 
begotten,  according  to  the  received  text,  exceeded,  not 
only  the  normal  limit,  but  even  that  at  which  his  grand- 
father first  obtained  issue.  He  had  lived  to  be  a  hun- 
dred and  eighty-seven  years  old.  Here,  again,  the 
size  of  the  figures  creates  suspicion  with  reference  to 
their  genuineness,  and  in  this  case,  as  in  that  of  Yeredh, 
it  is  necessary  to  substitute  for  them  the  Samaritan, 
sixty-seven. 

26.  In  this  case,  as  in  that  of  Yeredh,  the  second 
component  must  be  diminished  as  well  as  the  first ;  for, 
although  the  received  text  says  that  the  patriarch  lived 
after  begetting  his  firstborn  seven  hundred  and  eighty- 
t'wo  years,  the  Samaritan  reading  is  six  hundred  and 
fifty-three. 

*  The  story  of  Hanokh  has  a  parallel  in  Babjlonian  mythology. 
In  the  epic  of  Uruk,  however,  the  person  who,  with  his  wife,  is 
made  "  like  the  gods  "  and  translated  "  far  away  to  the  mouth  of  the 
streams,"  is  Ut-napishtim,  the  hero  of  the  Deluge.  See  KB,  vi.  I, 
244  ff.;  Jastrow,  RBA,  505  f. 


i84  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [V.  27,  28 

27.  Thus  the  total  of  his  years  was  not  nine  hundred 
and  sixty-nine,  but  seven  hundred  and  twenty.  The 
latter  number  harmonizes  better  than  the  former  with 
the  death  of  the  patriarch  by  the  Flood.* 

28.  The  prepaternal  component  of  Yeredh's  life  was 
found  to  be  longer  than  it  should  be  by  a  hundred  years, 
that  of  Methushelah  by  a  hundred  and  twenty  years. 
That  of  Lemekh  in  the  received  text  is  a  hundred  and 
eighty-t"wo  years,  or  a  hundred  and  twenty-nine  more 
than  it  is  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  The  antedilu- 
vian period  as  a  whole  is  thus  increased  from  a  thousand 
three  hundred  and  seven  to  a  thousand  six  hundred  and 
fifty-six  years.  Why  it  should  have  been  lengthened  at 
all,  and  why  by  just  three  hundred  and  forty-nine  years, 
there  is  no  means  of  knowing,  but  the  most  plausible 
explanation  is  that  (/)  the  lives  of  Yeredh,  Methushelah, 
and  Lemekh  were  lengthened,  after  the  incorporation  of 
the  Shethite  with  the  Kayinite  genealogy,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  the  latter  teach,  not,  as  originally,  the 
gradual  deterioration  of  the  race,  but  the  godliness  of 
the  Shethites  as  compared  with  the  Kayinites  ;  f  and 
{2)  that  the  amount  of  the  increment  was  determined  by 
the  next  important  date,  that  of  the  death  of  Noah,  who, 
according  to  ix.  28,  lived  after  the  Flood  three  hundred 
and  fifty,  or  perhaps,  according  to  the  reviser,  three  hun- 
dred and  forty-nine  years.J     In  distributing  the  added 

*  If  the  original  thought  was  to  represent  Methushelah  as  having 
perished  by  violence  at  the  comparatively  early  age  of  seven  hun- 
dred and  twenty,  it  is  probable  that  his  name,  lit.  Mau-of-the-jave- 
lin,  was  intended  to  suggest  the  violence  for  which  the  latter  part  of 
the  antediluvian  period  is  said  to  have  been  distinguished  (vi.  11). 

t  See  Budde,  Z?6^,  103  ff. 

X  Another  suggestion  is,  that  the  number  added  was  chosen  be- 
cause it  made  the  sum  of  the  years  from  creation  to  the  Exodus 
two  thousand  six  hundred  and  sixty-six,  or  two  thirds  of  four  thou- 


V.  29]  COMMENTS  185 

years  the  author  of  the  new  doctrine  naturally  gave  few- 
est to  the  first,  and  most  to  the  last  of  the  patriarchs 
affected  by  the  change. 

29.  The  name  of  Lemckh's  son  was  not  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  verse.  This  variation  in  phraseology  re- 
calls iv.  25,  and  prepares  the  reader  for  the  parenthetical 
explanation  similar  to  the  one  in  that  passage,  and  prob- 
ably by  the  same  author,  that  follows.  The  father  called 
his  child  Noah,  saying  He  "will  ease  *  us.  This  is  a 
prophetic  utterance.  It  must,  therefore,  refer  to  some 
feature  of  Noah's  character  or  some  event  in  his  subse- 
quent history.  Now  in  the  story  of  the  Flood  there 
occurs  a  passage  (viii.  21)  in  which  Yahweh  is  repre- 
sented as  so  pleased  with  the  sacrifice  offered  by  Noah, 
when  delivered,  that  he  resolves  not  again  to  curse  the 
ground  on  men's  account.  The  words  recall  iii.  17,  and, 
although  this  is  not  the  view  usually  taken,  they  may  be 
interpreted  as  having  reference  to  a  curse  like  that  pro- 
nounced upon  the  ground  as  a  part  of  the  penalty  for 
'Adham's  disobedience.  It  is  probable  that  the  author 
of  this  passage  so  understood  them,  and  took  the  two 
words,  properly  rendered  not  again,  in  the  possible  sense 

sand,  the  number  representing  the  expected  duration  of  the  world. 
See  Noldeke,  UK  AT,  in  ff . ;  Enc.  Bib.  Art.  C/ironology,  4; 
com  p.  Budde,  Bi/,  106. 

*  The  verb  is  CTO  IV,  the  first  two  consonants  of  which  are 
the  same  as  those  of  Noah.  Ball  substitutes  for  it  r\Z  because 
(/)  it  more  closely  resembles  the  name  in  question,  and  {2)  it  is  the 
word  that  seems  to  be  required  by  the  avoTrauw  of  the  Greek  Ver- 
sion. But  (/)  it  is  plain  from  iv.  i  that  in  such  cases  strict  corre- 
spondence between  the  terms  is  not  to  be  expected ;  and  {2)  it  will 
appear  on  examination  that  the  verb  sufrgested  by  Ball  does  not 
convey  the  thought  that  the  author  evidently  wished  to  express. 
The  actual  derivation  and  significance  of  the  name  are  unknown. 
For  various  theories  with  reference  to  it,  see  Dillmann. 


i86  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [V.  29-32 

of  no  longer,  thus  getting  the  idea  that  Noah  by  his  piety 
procured  the  removal  of  the  curse.  He  therefore  makes 
Lemekh  look  for  relief  through  his  first-born  from  the 
•work  and  the  toil  occasioned  by  the  stubbornness  of 
the  ground,  which  Yahweh  *  hath  cursed.  Compare 
Holzinger,  who  finds  in  the  words  of  Lemekh  a  predic- 
tion of  the  discovery  of  wine  by  Noah  (ix.  20  ff.). 

30.  The  remnant  of  Lemekh's  years,  according  to  the 
Samaritans,  was  six  hundred,  but  the  received  text  says 
five  hundred  and  ninety-five. 

31.  The  reason  for  the  deduction  is  apparent.  The 
six  hundredth  year  was  that  of  the  Flood,  in  which, 
therefore,  according  to  the  original  reading,  after  a  com- 
paratively short  life  of  six  hundred  and  fifty-three  years, 
he  perished.  If  the  number  six  hundred  had  been  re- 
tained, he  would  still  have  died  in  the  year  of  the  Flood, 
at  the  age  of  only  seven  hundred  and  eighty-two,  and 
the  inference  would  have  been  the  same  as  in  the  former 
case,  that  he  was  a  sinner.  The  subtraction  of  five  years 
made  his  total  seven  hundred  and  seventy-seven,  a 
number,  suggested  perhaps  by  iv.  24,  which,  like  three 
hundred  and  sixty-five,  though  not  large,  would  be  con- 
sidered symbolic  of  completion.     See  also  Mat.  xviii.  22. 

32.  The  genealogy  ends  with  a  notice  of  the  birth  of 
the  three  sons  of  Noah,  not,  of  course,  all  at  once,  after 
he  had  reached  the  age  of  five  hundred  years.  The  ex- 
planation of  the  length  of  this  interval  is  not  far  to  seek. 
In  the  first  place  it  was  necessary  to  allow  the  godly 
patriarchs  time  to  finish  their  lives.  When  Noah  was 
born,  Mahalal'el,  whose  total  falls  a  little  short  of  nine 
hundred,  had  five  hundred  and  eighty-three  years  to  live. 
Hence  the  postponement  of  the  Flood  until  Noah's  six 
hundredth  year.      If,  however,  his  family  had  multiplied 

♦  The  Greek  Version  adds  God. 


V.  Z2]  COMMENTS  187 

at  the  rate  at  which  the  race  was  increasing  when  he  was 
born,  to  save  him,  and  for  his  sake  all  his  house,  it  would 
have  been  necessary  to  make  provision  for  no  fewer 
than  ten  generations.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  increase 
of  his  family  had  been  entirely  suspended,  there  would 
have  been  no  adequate  provision  for  repeopling  the  earth 
after  the  Flood.  Both  difficulties  were  avoided  by  fixing 
the  dates  when  he  begot  his  sons  after  his  five  hundredth 
year.  The  names  of  these  sons  were  Shem,  Ham,  and 
Yepheth.* 

*  Thus  far  only  two  rescensions  of  this  genealogy  have  been 
mentioned,  the  Hebrew  and  the  Samaritan  ;  the  latter,  according 
to  which  it  was  a  thousand  three  hundred  and  seven  years  from 
Creation  to  the  Deluge,  being  preferred  to  the  former.  There  is 
another,  that  of  the  Greek  Version,  which  deserves  notice.  It  dif- 
fers from  that  of  the  received  text  chiefly  in  that  its  numbers  repre- 
senting the  dates  at  which  the  patriarchs  begot  their  first  sons,  if 
not  already  raised,  are  increased  by  a  hundred,  the  same  being 
deducted  from  the  numbers  representing  the  length  of  their  subse- 
quent lives.  In  the  cases  of  Lemekh  and  Methushelah  both  num- 
bers seem  to  have  been  further  manipulated,  the  one  increased,  the 
other  diminished.  The  following  table  exhibits  the  three  systems, 
the  Samaritan  being  taken  as  the  norm  and  the  numbers  in  which 
the  others  differ  from  it  being  printed  in  heavy  type,  that  the  number 
and  extent  of  the  variations  may  be  readily  seen  and  appreciated. 

Firstborn         Remainder  Total  Death-date 

SHGSHGSHG  SH         G 

'Adham 130  130  230  800  800  700  930  930  930  930     930     930 

Sheth 105   105  205  807  807  707  912  912  912  1042  1042  1142 

'Enosh 90     90  190  815  815  715  905  905  905  1140  1140  1340 

Kenan 70     70  170  840  840  740  910  910  910  1235   1235   1535 

Mahalal'el 65     65   165  830  830  730  895  895  S95  1290  1290  i6go 

Yeredh 62  162  162  785  800  800  847962962  1307  1422   1922 

Hanokh 65     65   165  300  300  200  365  365  365  8S7    987  1487 

Methushelah 67  187  167  653  782  802  720  969  969  1307  1656  2256 

Lemekh 53  182  188  600595565  653777753  1307  1651  2207 

Noah 500500   500  450450450  950950950  165720062592 

This  second  revision  is  plausibly  explained  by  a  desire  on  the 


1 88  THE    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM  [V. 

There  are  those  who  still  find  reasons  for  believing 
that  the  names  of  this  genealogy  represent  real  persons, 
and  that  each  of  these  persons  actually  lived  the  number 
of  years  he  is  reported  to  have  lived.  See  Murphy  ;  Daw- 
son, EL  IV,  84.  These  theses,  however,  cannot  be  main- 
tained, the  following  considerations  being  conclusive  to 
the  contrary  :  (/)  It  is  the  general  opinion  of  physiolo- 
gists, that  the  human  body  is  not  adapted  to  bear  the 
strain  of  more  than,  at  most,  two  hundred  years.  See 
Thoms,  HL.  14  ff.  (2)  There  is  reliable  evidence  that, 
at  the  close  of  the  period  covered  by  this  genealogy,  and 
in  the  region  where  the  patriarchs  are  supposed  to  have 
flourished,  the  average  length  of  human  life  was  not  much, 
if  any,  greater  than  in  modern  times,*  and  there  is  no 
equally  good  reason  for  believing  that  there  were  any  ex- 
ceptions so  remarkable  as  these  cases  would  have  been,  if 
they  had  existed,  (j)  It  is  incredible  that  the  age  of  pa- 
part  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  not  only  to  restore  the  symmetry  of 
the  table,  but  to  bring  the  chronology  based  on  it  more  nearly  into 
harmony  with  an  increased  estimate  of  the  antiquity  of  man.  See 
Budde,  BL^,  112.  At  any  rate,  the  result  is  the  extension  of  the 
antediluvian  period  from  a  thousand  six  hundred  and  fifty-six  to 
two  thousand  two  hundred  and  forty-two  years.  The  discovery 
that,  as  appears  from  the  table,  by  this  scheme  Methushelah  lived 
fourteen  years  beyond  the  Flood  led  to  its  correction  in  the 
Hebrew  text. 

*  This  may  be  inferred  from  the  length  of  the  reigns  of  a  suc- 
cession of  kings  as  recorded  on  a  Babylonian  tablet  discovered  in 
1880.  There  are  eleven  of  them,  the  first  of  whom  must  have 
reigned,  at  the  latest,  before  the  death  of  Noah  (1998  B.  c,  accord- 
ing to  the  received  chronology),  and  perhaps  before  the  biblical 
date  of  the  Flood  (2348  k.  c).  The  sum  of  their  reigns  was  only 
three  hundred  and  five  years,  the  average  being  less  than  twenty- 
eight.  See  Hommel,  AHT,  1 18  ff.  The  last  eleven  kings  that  ruled 
France  before  the  Revolution  reigned  together  two  hundred  and 
ninety-five,  or  an  average  of  nearly  twenty-seven  years. 


v.]  COMMENTS  189 

tcrnity  in  the  direct  line  should  never  have  fallen  below 
sixty-two  (Ileb.  sixty-five),  and  that  in  the  case  of  Noah 
the  first  son  should  not  have  been  born  until  the  father 
was  five  hundred  years  old.  (^)  Finally,  granting  that 
the  figures  of  the  Greek  Version  are  correct,  their  sum, 
two  thousand  two  hundred  and  forty-two,  falls  far  short  of 
expressing  the  duration  of  the  first  period  in  the  history 
of  mankind.     See  Le  Conte,  EG,  61S  ff. 

These  considerations  show  that,  from  the  strictly  his- 
torical standpoint,  the  chapter  is  of  little  value.  In 
reality  it  is  a  more  or  less  artificial  scheme,  probably  sug- 
gested by  the  list  of  mythological  kings  who  reigned  be- 
fore the  Babylonian  Deluge,*  by  which,  in  the  absence 
of  actual  data,  the  author  undertook  to  connect  his  doc- 
trine concerning  the  origin  of  the  world  with  the  more 
historical  parts  of  his  narrative.  It  is  not,  however,  a  mere 
genealogy,  but,  as  has  also  been  shown,  suggests,  and  was 
designed  to  suggest,  ideas  that  made  it  of  value  to  those 
for  whom  it  was  written.  Indeed,  in  its  original  form 
it  contained  instruction  on  all  the  principal  religious  ques- 
tions covered  by  the  two  preceding  chapters.  It  taught 
the  unity  of  the  race.  Its  doctrine  respecting  the  origin 
of  sin  differed,  it  is  true,  from  that  of  the  third  chapter, 
but  it  laid  just  as  great  emphasis  on  the  danger  of  defy- 

*  There  were  ten  of  them  also.  These  are  their  names,  with  the 
number  of  years  each  reigned,  according  to  Berosus  : 

Aloros 36,000  Daonos 36,000 

Alaparos 10,800  Euedoreschos 64,800 

Amelon 46,800  Amempsinos 36,000 

Ammenon 43.200  Otiartes 28,800 

Megalaros 64,800  Xisuthros 64,800 

The  total  of  their  reigns,  therefore,  and  the  duration  of  the  antedi- 
luvian period,  was  432,000  years.  See  Cory,  AF,  51  ff.  On  the 
ratio  between  this  number  and  that  representing  the  same  period 
according  to  the  Massoretic  text,  see  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  Chronology,  4. 


I90  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [VI.  i 

ing  or  neglecting  the  will  of  the  Creator.  Did  not  three 
of  its  patriarchs  perish  by  the  Deluge  ?  At  the  same 
time  it  taught,  by  its  treatment  of  Hanokh  and  Noah, 
the  possibility  of  resisting  evil  and  securing  the  constant 
favor  and  protection  of  the  Almighty.  These  doctrines 
have  been  somewhat  obscured  in  the  course  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  chapter  ;  but  it  still  retains  a  religious  signifi- 
cance, and  for  this  reason  deserves  the  place  it  occupies 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

The  fifth  chapter  brought  the  story  of  the  development 
of  mankind  down  to  the  birth  of  Shem  and  his  brothers 
about  a  hundred  years  before  the  Flood.  The  continu- 
ation of  that  account  is  found  in  vi.  9  ff.  These  two  pas- 
sages from  the  Priestly  narrative  are  separated  by  a  frag- 
ment from  another  source,  like  the  story  of  Kayin  and 
Hebhel  and  the  song  of  Lemekh  calculated  to  prepare 
the  mind  of  the  reader  for  the  terrible  visitation  by  which 
the  race  was  finally  all  but  annihilated.      It  treats  of 

c.     The  Apostate  Sons  of  God  (vi.  1-8). 

I.  The  date  of  the  episode  here  narrated  is  not  defi- 
nitely fixed  by  the  original  author.  Comp.  v,  4.  It  hap- 
pened "when  men,  the  race  and  not  any  part  of  it,  as,  e.g.y 
the  descendants  of  Kayin  as  distinguished  from  those  of 
Sheth,*  had  begun  to  multiply,  be  numerous,  on  the 
face  of  the  ground.  Comp.  Murphy.  At  this  time 
daughters,  as  well  as  sons,  had  been  born  to  them. 
Hitherto  the  author  of  this  story  seems  not  to  have  men- 
tioned the  birth  of  a  woman.f     Comp.  v.  4,  etc. 

*  If,  as  may  be  the  case,  since  this  passage  seems  to  be  from  the 
same  hand  as  iv.  17  ff.,  the  descendants  of  Kayin  were  originally 
intended,  the  author  thought  of  them  as  constituting  the  entire 
human  family. 

t  This  favors  the  view  that  the  last  clause  of  iv.  22,  in  which 


VI.  2]  COMMENTS  191 

2.  These  women,  so  the  author  says,  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  sons  of  G-od.  The  persons  here  meant 
are  undoubtedly  angels  ;  but  the  idea  that  so  exalted 
beings  should  have  paired  with  human  females,  especially 
in  view  of  Jesus'  declaration  as  reported  in  Mat.  xxii.  30, 
has  offended  many  interpreters,  and  they  have  preferred 
other  interpretations.  Thus,  some  have  held  that  the 
sons  of  God  were  sons  of  the  mighty  of  the  time  (Rashi) ; 
others  that  they  were  the  righteous,  or  the  Shethites 
(Murphy)  :  but  the  evidence  is  all  in  favor  of  the  opinion 
first  mentioned.  {/)  The  phrase  "  sons  of  God  "  in  the 
Old  Testament  invariably  means  the  attendants  of  the 
heavenly  court,  to  whom  i.  26  and  iii.  22  are  supposed  to 
refer.  See  Job  i.  6 ;  ii.  i  ;  xxxviii.  7  ;  Ps.  xxix.  i  ;  Ixxxix. 
6.  {2)  The  belief  in  the  possibility,  and  the  occurrence, 
of  intermarriages  between  divine  and  human  beings  was 
once  almost  universal.  The  classical  instances  are  fa- 
miliar. For  a  Shemitic  parallel,  see  Ishtar's  proposal  to 
Gilgamesh  (Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i.  1 66  ff.  ;  Jastrow,  RBA, 
481  ff.).  ( J)  The  New  Testament  expressly  identifies  the 
sons  of  God  with  angels.  See  2  Pet.  ii.  4ff.  ;  Jude  6. 
{4)  This  inteqoretation  is  further  supported  by  such  an- 
cient authorities  as  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Book  of  Jubi- 
lees, the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  Philo, 
Josephus,  and  most  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers.* 
Compare,  however,  the  Book  of  Adam  and  Eve,  iii.  4, 
It  was  angels,  then,  who  saw  that  the  daughters  of 
men  -were  fair,  and,  being  smitten  by  the  external  qual- 
ities that  appeal  to  the  senses,  took  to  themselves  as 
•wives  whomsoever  they  chose,  without  leave  asked  or 

Na'amah  is  mentioned,  is  an  addition  to  the  original  text.     See 
Budde,  ^<!7,  141  ff. 

*  According  to  Tertullian  there  is  a  reference  to  this  passage 
in  I  Cor.  xi.  10. 


192  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [VI.  3 

granted.  The  author  does  not  see  fit  to  explain  what 
form  they  wore  in  their  conjugal  relations.  See,  how- 
ever, xviii.  8,  etc. 

3.  At  this  point  the  natural  order,  which  would  require 
a  statement  concerning  the  issue  of  the  marriages  thus 
contracted,  is  interrupted  by  the  introduction  of  a  decree 
of  Yahweh.  The  spirit  of  Yahweh  in  this  connection  is 
probably  synonymous  with  the  breath  of  the  Almighty, 
the  source  of  all  animate  existence  (Job  xxxiii.  4)  ;  but 
it  may,  as  Wellhausen  {CH,  305  f.)  suggests,  have  special 
reference  to  the  new  infusion  of  the  divine  which  the 
race  had  received  through  the  angels.  Whatever  it  is, 
it  is  not  to  abide  *  in  men,  lit.  man,  forever.  The 
addition  of  the  last  word  furnishes  a  clue  to  the  meaning 
of  the  term  itien.  It  can  hardly  denote  individuals  ;  for 
Yahweh  has  already  settled  it  that  the  life  of  the  indi- 
vidual shall  not  endure  indefinitely.  See  iii.  19,  22ff.f 
It  must,  therefore,  be  the  race  as  a  whole  that  is  threat- 
ened with  a  termination  of  its  existence.  The  reason 
given,  since  they  also  are  flesh,  J  is  obscure.  It  prob- 
* 

*  This  is  the  uniform  rendering  of  the  Versions ;  but  whether  it 
can  be  gotten  out  of  the  Massoretic  text  is  doubtful.  Hence  it 
has  been  suggested  that  for  "JIT^  (here  only)  there  be  substituted 
*l'n^  (Ilgen),  llV  (Kuenen),  or  •J13"'  (Ball).  Others,  retaining  the 
present  reading,  render  the  verb  strive  (E.  V.),  ride  (Dehtzsch),  or 
be  abased  {T>\\\va?iVvx\).     See  also  Berry, /6'Z,  xvi.  47  ff. 

t  If,  as  Budde  {BU,  44)  claims,  this  verse  originally  immediately 
preceded  iii.  23,  the  term  men  must  then  have  denoted  individuals  ; 
but  since  a  decree  again  limiting  the  life  of  the  individual  would 
have  been  as  superfluous  there  as  here,  there  is  little  probability 
that  the  passage  ever  formed  a  part  of  the  third  chapter. 

X  This  on  the  supposition  that  the  correct  reading  is  22tZ72'  lit. 
in  that  also  (Ginsburg).  The  more  common  reading  is  C2ti'2» 
which  is  rendered  in  their  (the  angels')  error  (Dillmann).  Ball 
{Addenda)  explains  it  as  originating  in  dittography  of  the  follow- 


VI.  3]  COMMENTS  193 

ably  means  that  men  are  of  a  lower  order  than  the  sons 
of  God,  and  that  therefore  an  intermixture  of  the  two  is 
unnatural  and  intolerable.  The  last  clause  fixes  a  defi- 
nite limit  beyond  which  it  will  not  be  permitted  :  their 
days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  t"wenty  years.  If  the 
interpretation  just  given  to  the  first  half  of  the  verse  is 
correct,  such  a  declaration  can  only  mean  that  the  figures 
here  used  measure  the  further  existence  of  the  race. 
This  view  is  not  generally  accepted,  but  it  is  supported 
by  weighty  considerations  :  (/)  It  is  the  one  required  by 
the  immediate  context.  The  author  of  this  verse  would 
not  have  considered  the  abbreviation  of  human  life  an 
expedient  calculated  to  undo  the  mischief  wrought  by  the 
sons  of  God.  (2)  Since,  as  already  intimated,  the  story, 
in  its  present  form  and  setting,  was  evidently  intended 
to  explain  and  justify  the  Deluge,  the  penalty  threatened 
must  be  the  destruction  of  mankind  by  that  catastrophe. 
The  most  plausible  objection  is  that,  between  the  birth 
of  Shem  in  Noah's  five  hundredth  and  the  Flood  in  his 
six  hundredth  year  there  is  not  room  for  the  given  in- 
terval (Tuch) ;  but  this  is  invalidated  by  the  fact  that,  as 
has  already  been  explained,  vi.  1-8  is  not  a  continuation 
of  chapter  v.,  and  therefore  must  not  be  expected  to  har- 
monize with  it.*  The  early  authorities,  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian, then,  were  correct  in  regarding  this  third  verse  as  a 

ing  "!tt?3-  The  principal  objection  to  the  first  interpretation  is  that 
tZ;  for  "m^S  is  late  Hebrew,  or  Aramaic,  and  therefore  not  in  place 
in  the  Pentateuch  (Dillmann);  but  (/)the  lateness  of  W  is  not  un- 
disputed (iMoore  on  Jud.  v.  7),  and  (.?)  if  it  is  late,  so  in  all  proba- 
bility is  this  verse.     Comp.  Budde. 

*  A  similar  mistake  is  made  when,  in  arguing  against  the  view 
that  the  number  a  hundred  and  twenty  is  the  measure  of  the  indi- 
vidual human  life,  the  cases  of  Abraham,  Sarah,  etc.,  are  cited  ; 
since  the  data  on  which  the  objection  is  based  all  come  from  the 
Priestly  narrative.     Conip.  Uelitzsch. 


194  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VI.  3-5 

prediction  of  the  Flood  and  its  terrible  consequences. 
Comp.  Dillmann.  The  respite  was  naturally  explained 
as  an  evidence  of  the  longsuffering  of  God  (i  Pet.  iii. 
20)  and  an  opportunity  for  Noah  to  preach  righteousness 
to  the  ungodly  (2  Pet.  ii.  5). 

4.  The  author  of  v.  3  evidently  condemned  the  course 
of  the  sons  of  God  as  wicked  and  calamitous.  In  the 
statement  that  now  follows  there  is  no  trace  of  con- 
demnation. Like  the  account  of  Lemekh's  departure 
from  monogamy  (iv.  19  ff.)  and  that  of  Noah's  discovery 
of  wine  (ix.  20  ff.),  it  is  a  passionless  record  of  an  inter- 
esting tradition.  It  says  that  the  giants  *  were,  per- 
haps arose,  in  those  days.  These  words  in  themselves 
would  not  connect  the  giants  with  the  sons  of  God  as 
their  offspring,  but  the  clause  when  the  sons  of  God 
came  to  the  daughters  of  men  has  no  significance 
unless  it  establishes  such  a  relation.!  These  giants  were 
the  heroes,  men  of  might  and  prowess,  who,  by  their 
achievements,  of  old  had  become  the  men  of  renown. 
In  other  words  they  corresponded  to  the  demigods  of 
classical  mythology. 

5.  Toward  the  end  of  the  appointed  interval  Yahweh 
sa"w  that  the  w^ickedness  of  men,  stimulated  by  the 
lawlessness  of  the  sons  of  God,  was  great  in  the  earth, 
that,  indeed,  every  design  of  the  thoughts  of  their 
hearts,  as  expressed  in  their  conduct,  was  only  and 
always  evil.  In  such  a  case  specifications  become  su- 
perfluous. 

*  The  derivation  of  the  word  so  rendered,  C^bo  is  uncert.iin, 
but  the  meaning  is  clear  from  Num.  xiii.  33,  where,  however,  the 
sons  of-Anakfroni  the  i^ianfs  is  a  j]^loss.     See  the  Greek  Version. 

t  The  phrase  and  also  afterward  might  be  explained  as  refer- 
ring to  the  interval  between  the  date  of  the  first  intermarriages  and 
that  of  tlie  Flood  (Dchtzsch),  but  it  is  more  probably  an  inlcrpola- 
liun  suggested  by  Num.  xiii.  33  (Buddc). 


VI.  6-S]  COMMENTS  195 

6.  The  effect  upon  Yahweh  is  described  in  pictur- 
esque anthropomorphisms  from  which  the  unsophisti- 
cated reader  cannot  fail  to  get  a  vivid  impression  of  the 
extent  of  the  corruption  that  prevailed.  First,  he  was 
sorry  that  he  had  made  men  at  all,  and  his  grief  over 
their  waywardness  went  to  his  heart. 

7.  This  feeling  finally  gave  way  to  anger,  and  he  de- 
clared, I  will  wipe  men  off  the  face  of  the  ground.* 

8.  But  one  was  found  worthy  of  being  excepted  from 
this  stern  decision.  Noah,  for  a  reason  that  will  appear 
hereafter  (vii.  i),  found  favor  in  the  eyes  of  Yahw^eh. 

The  story  of  the  "  sons  of  God"  in  its  natural  and 
necessary  interpretation  has  been  a  stumbling-block  to 
many  devout  readers  of  the  Scriptures.  One  who  has 
studied  the  preceding  chapters  in  the  light  of  recent  ori- 
ental discoveries,  however,  and  noted  the  traces  of  foreign, 
especially  Babylonian,  influence  therein  contained,  will 
not  be  greatly  surprised  at  finding  here  a  decidedly  myth- 
ological coloring.  Nor  will  it  disturb  his  reverence  for 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole,  or  his  appreciation  of  this 
particular  passage ;  for  he  will  have  noted  that,  although 
the  reality  of  the  gods  and  demigods  of  the  gentiles  is 
here  taken  for  granted,  they  are  presented  in  such  a  light 
as  to  prevent  the  thoughtful  Hebrew  from  placing  them 
on  an  equality  with  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  he  will 
contemplate  with  growing  admiration  the  moral  insight 


*  It  is  men  with  whom  Yahweh  is  angr)'.  They  alone,  there- 
fore, should  be  threatened  with  destruction.  In  the  present  text, 
however,  animals  of  all  sorts  share  in  the  divine  displeasure.  The 
discrepancy  has  been  produced  by  the  insertion  of  a  list  of  specifi- 
cations, proper  enough  after  such  an  expression  as  all  flesh  but  not 
after  men,  to  bring  this  verse  more  nearly  into  accord  with  vii.  i\ 
and  other  like  passages  from  a  different  source  (P).  The  clause 
whom  I  have  created,  also,  is  an  interpolation. 


196  THE    WORLD   BEFORE   ABRAHAM    [VI.  9,  10 

that  enabled  the  author  so  clearly  to  perceive  the  rotten- 
ness of  the  foundation  of  the  ethnic  religions. 

The  central  figure  in  the  rest  of  this  and  the  next  three 
chapters  is  the  patriarch  Noah.  The  whole  may  there- 
fore appropriately  be  discussed  under  the  title 

3.    Noah  and  his  Times  (vi.  9-ix.  29), 

the  proper  equivalent  for  the  generations  of  Noah  in 
this  connection. 

The  greater  part  of  the  narrative  is  devoted  to  a  com- 
posite account  of 

a.     The  Deluge  (vi.  9-ix.  17)  ; 

which  naturally  falls  into  three  sections,  the  first  dealing 
with 

(i)  The  Preparations  of  Noah  (vi.  9-vii.  5).  It  is 
composed  of  two  parts,  each  of  which  recounts  the  steps 
taken  by  the  patriarch  under  the  divine  direction  to  save 
himself  and  his  family  from  destruction  by  the  Flood. 

(a)  TJlc  First  Account  (vi.  9-22),  derived  from  the 
Priestly  narrative,  seems  to  have  been  incorporated  into 
the  text  entire. 

9.  It  begins  with  a  statement  with  reference  to  the 
character  of  Noah,  declaring  that  he  was  a  just,*  a  per- 
fect man,  and  therefore  conspicuous  among  his  fellows, 
lit.  /;/  Jiis  gcticrations.  Like  Hanokh  (v.  22)  he  also 
walked  with  God, 

10.  The  author  does  not  say  that  his  three  sons, 
whose  birth  was  recorded  in  v.  32,  were  as  remarkable 
for  their  piety  as  their  father,  but  he  probably  thought 
of  them  as  having  profited  by  the  patriarch's  example. 
Comp.  ix.  i8ff.  (J). 

*  The  Samaritans  connect  p** "!!!,/;/>$•/,  which  liall  is  inclined  to 
pronounce  a  gloss  borrowed  from  vii.  i,  with  Z."''tlT\^ perfdi,  Ity  a  > 
and. 


V 1 .  1 1  - 1 4]  COMMENTS  1 97 

11.  Not  so  the  rest  of  mankind;  for  the  earth,  here 
put  for  its  inhabitants,  in  spite  of  his  piety  became  cor- 
rupt, morally  ruined.  The  prevalent  corruption  showed 
itself  in  violence,  disregard  of  the  rights  of  one's  fel- 
lows, the  prevailing  sin  of  godless  ages  and  communities. 

12.  The  corruption  described  was  not  confined  to  man- 
kind. The  lower  animals  learned  to  hunt  and  devour  one 
another.  Comp.  Strack.  Thus  all  flesh  had  finally  per- 
verted its  way,  changed  the  course  of  nature  and  tem- 
porarily defeated  the  benevolent  purpose  of  the  Creator. 

13.  God  was  not  slow  to  discover  a  remedy.  He  says 
to  Noah,  The  end,  the  destruction  (Am.  viii.  i),  of  all 
flesh  hath  come  before  me.  He  has  set  it  before  him- 
self as  an  object  to  be  accomplished.  Comp.  Am.  ix.  4, 
etc.  He  purposes  to  destroy  them,  the  individuals  re- 
sponsible for  the  state  of  things  described,  and*  the 
earth;  or,  as  the  sequel  shows,  destroy  them  and  devas- 
tate the  earth,  f 

14.  Thus  far  there  has  been  no  intimation  with  refer- 
ence to  the  means  by  which  mankind  are  to  be  destroyed. 
It  now  appears  that  it  is  to  be  done  by  water,  for  God  in- 
structs Noah  to  build  an  ark,  /".  c,  as  in  Ex.  ii.  3,  a  box 
that  will  float  on  the  water.  J     It  is  to  be  made  of  a  wood 

*  With  the  Greek  Version,  the  orip^inal  of  which  seems  to  have 
had  nsi  instead  of  the  nS>  with,  of  the  present  Hebrew  text.  The 
Syriac  has  b^'  on. 

t  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  word  nntr»  here  used  in  the 
sense  of  destroy,  is  the  same  that  appeared  above  in  \\\7s.\.Qi  corrupt 
2Lnd pervert.  If  a  paronomasia  was  intended,  a  similar  effect  could 
be  produced  in  EngHsh  by  wsmg  pervert  throughout  for  the  offence 
and  subvert  for  the  penalty. 

X  The  fact  that  Noah  is  represented  as  escaping  by  a  box,  and 
not,  like  the  hero  of  the  Babylonian  deluge,  in  a  ship  or  houseboat, 
has  been  supposed  to  indicate  that  the  Hebrew  story  originated  in- 
land;  but  it  is  quite  as  probable  that  the  author  by  the  term  here 


198  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VI.  14,  15 

whose  identity  is  in  dispute ;  probably  cypress,  which 
was  anciently  very  common  in  western  Asia,  and  was 
much  used  by  the  Egyptians  for  coffins  and  by  the  Phoe- 
nicians in  shipbuilding.  See  Tristram,  A^//^,  356.  Comp. 
Cheyne,  ZA  IV,  1898,  163  f.  The  ark  is  to  be  constructed 
in  cells,*  doubtless  for  the  accommodation  of  the  various 
species  of  animals  and  their  subsistence  ;  and  the  seams 
stopped  by  smearing  it  outside  and  in  with  bitumen, 
the  mineral  pitch  which  is  found  in  large  quantities  in 
both  Palestine  (xiv.  10)  and  Mesopotamia  (xi.  3). 

15.  Noah  also  receives  instructions  with  reference  to 
the  size  of  the  ark.  The  length  prescribed  is  three 
hundred  cubits.  The  Hebrews  seem  to  have  had  cubits 
of  two  different  lengths,  the  one  a  handbreadth  longer 
than  the  other  (Eze.  xl.  5).  If  the  cubit  here  meant  was 
the  longer  of  the  two,  and,  as  there  are  reasons  for  sup- 
posing, approximately  identical  with  the  "  royal  cubit  "  of 
the  Babylonians,  it  measured  about  495  millimetres  or 
19.49  inches.  See  Benziger,  HA,  art.  E//c ;  comp. 
Riehm.  The  length  of  the  ark  would  thus  be  148.5 
metres  or  487.2  feet.  Its  breadth,  fifty  cubits,  in  mod- 
em terms  would  be  24.75  metres  or  81.2  feet,  and  its 
height,  thirty  cubits,  14.85  metres  or  48.72  feet.f 

used  meant  to  intimate  that  in  the  time  of  the  patriarch  ships  were 
unknown. 

*  Lagarde  suggests  the  insertion  of  a  second  C^3p»  which,  how- 
ever, would  only  emphasize  the  idea  expressed  by  the  present  text. 
The  Babylonian  Noah  divided  his  ship  into  sixty-three  compart- 
ments.    See  Schrader,  /CB,  vi.  i.  232  ff.  ;  Appendix,  11.  62  ff. 

t  The  largest  modern  steamships  (600-700  ft.)  are  much  Ioniser 
than  the  ark,  but,  since  they  are  not  nearly  so  wide  or  deep,  they 
have  not  an  equal  capacity  (1,927,394.38  cu.  ft.).  The  "Great 
Eastern,"  however,  surpassed  it  in  all  three  dimensions,  being  6S0 
feet  long,  82.5  feet  wide,  and  58  feet  deep.  On  the  dimensions  of 
the  Babylonian  ark,  see  Johns  in  77/^  Expositor  for  April,  1901. 


VI.  i6,  17]  CO.\fMF,NTS  199 

iT).  IVovision  for  light  and  air  is  to  be  made  by  fin- 
ishing it  —  not  a  window  (Dillmann),  but  the  ark  — 
within  a  cubit  of  the  top,  thus  leaving  an  opening  a 
cubit  wide  around  the  entire  vessel  under  the  roof.*  The 
only  door  in  the  structure  is  to  be  placed  in  the  side  of 
the  ark.  Finally  the  interic^r  is  to  be  divided  horizon- 
tilly  by  floors  making  a  lower,  a  second,  and  a  third 
story,  each  of  them,  if  equal  in  height,  being  about  six- 
teen feet  high.f 

17.  Having  finished  this  description  of  the  ark,  God 
announces  in  so  many  words  that  he  will  bring  the 
Flood4  so  called  in  anticipation  of  the  prominence  to 
be  given  to  it  by  mankind,  upon  the  earth,  or  that 
part  of  it  not  already  covered  with  water.  His  purpose 
is  the  destruction, §  with  the  exception  hereafter  to  be 
made,  of  all  land  life.  That  there  may  be  no  doubt  about 
his  meaning,  he  defines  the  phrase  all  flesh  by  in  which 
is  a  living  spirit,  and  then  employs,  to  emphasize  the 
whole  thought,  the  familiar  Hebrew  device,  repetition: 

*  This  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  present  text.  It  also 
seems  to  suit  the  context.  There  is  therefore  no  necessity  for 
importing  from  the  Arabic  a  meaning  (roof)  for  'yrVli  or  recasting 
n^brn  n!2S"VS'  to  a  cubit  thou  shalt  finish  //,  into  HD'^S'bs* 
n^D^n  to  its  U-nj^th  thou  shalt  cover  it.     Comp,  Ball. 

f  The  entire  floor-space  would  thus  be  118,681.92  square  feet. 
The  question  whether  a  vessel  answering  to  the  dimensions  here 
given  would  accommodate  the  cargo  for  which  it  was  designed,  is 
of  importance  only  to  those  who  feel  obliged  to  insist  that  the  story 
of  the  Flood  is  in  all  its  details  authentic  history.  The  ship  of 
Bahylonian  legend  had  seven  stories.  See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i, 
232  f. ;  Appendix,  1.  62. 

X  The  word  C*!:'  water,  of  the  present  text  appears  to  be  a 
gloss  on  the  perhaps  unfamiliar  term  b'li:!2'  Flood. 

§  For  the  nntt^b  of  the  received  text  the  Samaritans  read  iHTIil-b 
or  riTlti'nb'  On  the  latter  form,  see  Ges.  §  53,  3,  K  7 ;  on  the 
construction,  §  1 14,  2,  R  4. 


zoo  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [VI.  17-20 

all  that  is  in  the  earth,  he  says,  shall  perish.     This, 
of  course,  implies  a  universal  deluge. 

18.  The  decree  consigning  to  destruction  the  corrupt 
mass  of  mankind  is  immediately  followed  by  a  token  of 
God's  satisfaction  with  the  patriarch  :  I  "will  establish, 
enter  into,  my,  i.  e.,  a,  covenant  "with  thee.  This  cov- 
enant, however,  though  made  with  Noah  alone,  is  to 
affect  the  fortunes  of  his  entire  family ;  for  the  com- 
mand (and  promise)  reads,  thou  shalt  go  into  the  ark, 
thou,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  "wife,  and  the  "wives  of 
thy  sons  "with  thee.* 

19.  Nor  is  this  all.  For  his  sake  God  proposes  to 
provide  for  the  perpetuation  of  all  the  beasts,!  i^  this 
case  all  the  varied  species  of  the  animal  world.  To  this 
end  the  patriarch  is  instructed  to  bring  into  the  ark  a 
male  and  a  female  of  each  kind. 

20.  Three  classes  of  animals  are  enumerated,  the 
birds,  the  cattle,  and  %  all,  the  multitude  of,  the 
creeping  things.  The  author  seems  to  have  felt  that 
the  term  used  in  the  preceding  verse  made  it  unnecessary 
to  make  express  mention  of  "the  beasts  of  the  earth." 
In  V.  19  Noah  is  commanded  to  brijig  the  animals  into 
the  ark ;  here  God  says  they  shall  come  to  him,  as 
if,  scenting  danger,  and,  as  is  still  their  habit,  seeking 

*  The  idea  of  Valeton  {ZAW,  1892,  7),  that  the  covenant 
here  proposed  is  the  same  as  that  of  chapter  ix.,  is  clearly  mis- 
taken. This  is  made  with  Noah  as  a  pledge  of  his  escape  from  the 
impending  deluge  ;  that,  with  him  and  his  descendants  after  the 
Flood,  as  security  against  the  recurrence  of  such  a  calamity.  See 
ix.  9  ff. 

t  rr^nri'  with  the  Samaritans,  instead  of  the  ^nr\i  living;  thim^^ 
of  the  received  text.     See  viii.  17;  comp.  iii.  20;  viii.  21. 

X  This  is  the  Greek,  the  Syriac,  and  the  Samaritan  reading ;  the 
received  text  omits  the  connective. 


\'  1 .  20- V 1 1 .  2  ]  COMMENTS  20 1 

human   protection,  they  would   take  refuge  with  him,  to 
be  kept  alive.* 

21.  Nt)ah,  tor  his  part,  has  to  provide  for  their  suste- 
nance, as  well  as  his  own,  by  collecting  an  indefinite 
quantity  of  every  food  that  is  eaten. 

22.  The  patriarch,  being  "  a  perfect  man,"  exact  in 
his  obedience  to  the  divine  will,  did  just  as  God  had 
commanded  him. 

(b)  TJic  Second  Account  (vii.  1-5),  which  is  of  Yah- 
wistic  origin,  is  but  a  fragment.  The  part  that  dealt 
\vith  the  ark  and  its  construction,  with  which  it  doubtless 
once  began,  and  by  which  it  was  connected  with  vi.  8, 
has  been  omitted,  probably  because  it  would  have  been  a 
mere  repetition  of  vi.  14-16. 

1.  In  its  present  form  it  assumes  that  the  ark  has 
already  been  completed.  It  begins  as  if  the  command 
in  vi.  18  had  not  already  been  given  and  the  persons 
affected  by  it  enumerated.  Yahweh  —  mark  the  name 
for  the  Deity  —  says  to  Noah,  Come  thou,  and  all  thy 
house,  into  the  ark.  There  is  no  reference  to  a  cove- 
nant made  or  proposed,  but  the  reason  given  by  Yahweh 
for  his  command,  thee  have  I  found  righteous  before 
me  in  this  generation,  amounts  to  the  recognition  of  an 
obligation  to  reward  the  patriarch  for  his  exceptional 
piety. 

2.  Thus  far,  therefore,  there  is  practical  agreement 
between  the  two  accounts.  The  instructions  now  given 
with  reference  to  the  animals  differ  from  those  of  the 
first  account :  first,  in  making  a  distinction  among  them  ; 
and  second,  in  adding  to  the  number  to  be  taken  from 
one  of  the  classes  thus  distinguished.     Thus,  a  part  of 

*  The  emphasis  on  the  subject  in  v.  20  favors  this  interpreta- 
tion. 


202 


THE    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM    [VII.  2,  3 


the  animals  are  characterized  as  clean,  i.  c,  as  appears 
from  viii.  20,  suital)le  for  sacrifices  to  the  Deity  as  well 
as  for  food  for  mankind,  viz.,  sheep,  goats,  etc.  This 
distinction  —  which  is  not  surprising  in  the  present  con- 
nection, the  teaching  of  the  Yahwist  being  that  the  use 
of  animals  for  the  purposes  mentioned  was  an  imme- 
morial custom  (iii.  21;  iv.  4)  —  would  have  been  out  of 
place  in  the  other  account,  since,  according  to  the  Priestly 
narrator,  animals  were  not  slain  for  either  purpose  until 
after  the  Flood  (i.  29 ;  ix.  3).  Of  these  clean  animals 
Noah  is  directed  to  take  by  sevens.  The  meaning  of 
this  phrase  is  disputed.  The  more  natural  interpreta- 
tion makes  it  mean,  not  seven  pairs  (Dillmann),  but  seven 
individuals  of  each  species,  or  three  pairs  of  a  male  and 
his  mate,*  to  secure  a  comparatively  rapid  restoration 
of  these  useful  species,  and  an  odd  male  for  the  sacrifice 
by  which  the  patriarch  is  to  celebrate  his  deliverance 
(viii.  20).  This  view  is  favored  by  the  fact  that,  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  verse,  by  tvros  f  evidently  means  a 
single  pair  of  each  species. 

3.  The  phraseology  of  the  received  text  might  be 
interpreted  to  mean  that  all  the  species  of  birds  are  to 
be  represented  in  the  ark  by  sevens  ;  but  viii.  20  makes 
it  evident  that  this  was  not  the  author's  idea,  and  there 
is  good  authority  for  believing  that  the  original  reading 
was,  of  the  clean  birds  of  heaven  by  sevens,  and  of 
all  the  birds  that  are  not  clean  by  twos.  J     The  dis- 

*  Compare  a  male  and  a  fetnale,  the  expression  used  by  P  in 
vi.  19. 

t  The  present  text  has  C^Dti>,  two,  but  the  Samaritan  reading  is 
C^:*i?  r:'^3C'  and  it  is  supported  by  the  Greek  and  Syriac  versions. 

X  The  reading  clean  birds  is  supported  by  the  Greek,  Syriac,  and 
Samaritan  texts:  but,  if  this  is  genuine,  the  Greek  Version  is  doubt- 
less correct  in  adding  the  parallel  clause  prescribing  the  number 
of  unclean  birds  to  be  admitted  to  the  ark. 


VII.  3-5]  COMMENTS  203 

tinction  between  clean  and  unclean  it  was  as  important 
to  notice  in  connection  with  the  birds  as  with  the  cattle ; 
but  it  was  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  requirement  that 
Noah  should  select  alternately  a  male  and  a  female. 
It  is  therefore  probable  that  this  phrase,  which,  more- 
over, is  in  the  later  style  of  the  Priestly  narrator  (vi.  19), 
is  an  interpolation.*  The  expression  the  whole  earth 
shows  that  the  Yahwist  also  thought  of  the  deluge  as 
universal. 

4.  Yahweh  gives  his  servant  seven  days  in  which  to 
bestow  the  animals  and  the  food  necessary  for  their  sus- 
tenance in  the  ark.  At  the  end  of  that  time,  he  says,  he 
intends  to  cause  a  rain,  in  itself  not  a  remarkable  phe- 
nomenon, by  which,  owing  to  its  duration,  forty  days 
and  forty  nights,  he  will  wipe  all  his  creatures  off  the 
face  of  the  earth.  The  idea  of  the  author  evidently  is 
that,  at  the  end  of  that  time,  the  work  of  destruction 
having  been  completed,  the  deluge  will  cease.  See  v.ij  \ 
viii.  6  ;  comp.  v.  24 ;  viii.  3  f. 

5.  This  verse  is  only  a  less  formal  duplicate  of  vi.  21. 

When  all  things  were  finally  in  readiness,  God  sent 
the  deluge,  as  he  had  threatened.  Much  of  the  rest  of 
the  story  is  devoted  to 

(2)  The  Water  of  the  Flood  (vii.  6-viii.  14) :  the 
havoc  wrought  by  it  and  the  experiences  of  Noah  while  it 
covered  the  earth.  Here,  too,  the  narrative  is  composite, 
but  the  extracts  of  which  it  is  composed  are  too  brief  to 
be  treated  as  separate  paragraphs.  The  only  further 
division  that  seems  warranted  is  based  on  the  phenomena 
of  the  rise  and  subsidence  of  the  water.  From  this  point 
of  view  there  are  two  sections,  the  first  of  which  describes 

*  In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  this  idiom  has  been  substituted 
in  V.  2  for  that  preserved  in  the  Massoretic  text. 


204  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VII.  6-9 

(a)  A  Destructive  Prevaleiicc  (vii.  6-24).  6.  It  opens 
with  a  statement  of  the  age  of  Noah,  six  hundred  years, 
when  the  Mood  occurred.  This  statement  clearly  be- 
longs to  the  chronological  scheme,  original  with  the 
Priestly  narrator,  which  ran  through  the  preceding  chap- 
ters and  furnishes  a  framework  for  the  present  story. 

7.  This  general  statement  was  originally  followed  by 
the  precise  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  deluge  in  v.  11. 
In  the  present  composite  narrative  the  connection  be- 
tween the  two  is  interrupted,  first,  by  a  notice  of  the 
embarkation  of  Noah  and  his  family  anticipating  a  more 
detailed  account  of  the  same  incident  in  vv.  12-16.  The 
words.  And  Noah  -went  into  the  ark  on  account  of, 
through  fear  of,  the  water  of  the  Flood,  are  attributed 
to  the  Yahwist ;  the  rest  is  probably  editorial  elaboration. 
Com  p.  V.  I. 

8.  The  description  of  the  embarkation  of  the  animals, 
also,  being  intended  to  harmonize  vv.  2  f.  with  vi.  19,  is 
of  editorial  origin.  It  recognizes  the  distinction  between 
the  clean  and  the  unclean,  but,  following  v.  3,  omits  to 
apply  it  to  the  birds  as  well  as  the  cattle.* 

9.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  author  of  the  last  verse 
would  follow  vv.  2  f.  so  closely  as  he  has  thus  far  and 
contradict  that  passage  before  he  finished  the  sentence. 
Hence  one  must  conclude  that  in  this  verse  by  twos 
refers,  not  to  the  number  of  each  species  of  animal  that 
went  into  the  ark,  but  to  the  number  that  went  abreast 
in  the  procession.  Perhaps  —  and  the  addition  of  a 
male  and  a  female  seems  to  favor  this  view  —  the 
auth(jr  also   interpreted   by  sevens  in   v.  3   as  meaning 

•  For  bsi'  aud  all,  the  Samaritans  read  b3tt*l»  ajid  of  all,  and 
the  latter,  bein^  the  more  natural  and  having  the  support  of  the 
Greek  and  Syriac  versions,  is  doubtless  the  correct  reading,  \ 


V 1 1 .  9- 1 1  ]  COMMENTS  205 

seven  pairs.     The  last  clause,  with  Jahweh,*  naturally 
attaches  itself  to  v.  7.! 

10.  At  the  end  of  the  seven  days  granted  Noah  for 
his  final  preparations  {v.  4),  when  he  had  taken  refuge 
in  the  ark  {v.  7),  the  "water  of  the  Flood  -was,  began 
to  be,  on  the  earth ;  the  threatened  rain  set  in. 

11.  The  Priestly  author  now  resumes  his  precise  and 
detailed  description  of  the  embarkation.  See  ik  6.  The 
month,  the  second,  and  even  the  day,  the  seventeenth,^ 
on  which  the  Flood  began  are  carefully  noted.  The 
Hebrew  year  originally  began  in  the  fall ;  and,  since 
the  author  elsewhere  (Ex.  xii.  2)  distinctly  attributes  the 
change  in  the  method  of  reckoning  to  Moses,  he  would 
naturally  reckon  from  Tishri  in  the  period  preceding  the 
advent  of  the  lawgiver.  Comp.  Gunkel.  The  second 
month  would  thus  be  Bui  (i  Kgs.  vi.  38),  later  Marhesh- 
wan,  beginning  about  the  middle  of  October;  so  that 
the  seventeenth  of  the  month  would  come  about  the  first 
of  November,  when  the  rainy  season  in  Palestine  and  the 
neighboring  countries  usually  sets  in.§  On  that  day 
all  the  sluices  of  the  great  deep,  the  openings  by 

*  This  is  the  Samaritan  reading  and  it  is  supported  by  tlie  Tar- 
gum  and  the  Vulgate. 

t  Some  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Version  have  the  equivalent 
of  the  pronoun  hitn  instead  of  the  name  Noah,  and,  when  the 
clause  was  attached  to  v.  7,  the  former  may  have  been  the  Hebrew 
reading.  • 

X  According  to  the  Greek  Version  it  was  the  tu<cnty-sevc7ith. 
The  Priestly  narrator  always  omits  the  word  DV»  day,  when  the 
number  is  ten  or  less,  but  always  inserts  it  —  on  Lev.  xxiii.  5,  see 
the  Greek  and  Samaritan  reading  —  with  a  larger  number.  Hence 
the  question  here  is,  whether  the  translators  mistook  D"^  "1tC17  for 
n'*"ltt7r'  or  a  later  copyist  omitted  the  terminal  C**  in  C'^  n'*~!tt7i''  5 
and  it  seems  to  defy  solution. 

§  The  following  table,  copied  from  the  author's  Amos,  furnishes 


2o6        THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VII.  11-13 

which  tlic  Hebrews  represented  the  "water  under  the 
earth  "  (ICx.  x\.  4  ;  Ps.  xxiv.  2  ;  Am.  vii.  4)  as  brought  to 
the  surface,  were  rent  open,  suddenly  and  violently- 
enlarged,  perhaps  multiplied,  to  emit  an  unprecedented 
volume  of  water.  There  is  no  reference  to  a  tidal  wave 
t)r  any  similar  phenomenon.  Comp.  Dawson,  EL  JV,  94. 
In  addition  the  windows  of  heaven,  the  openings  in 
the  solid  expanse  by  which  God  had  divided  the  primeval 
watery  waste  (i.  6),  were  undone,  to  empty  the  water  of 
the  celestial  reservoir  upon  the  earth. 

12.  With  the  foregoing  description,  w^hich  makes  the 
Flood  an  immediate  miracle,  compare  the  simple  and 
characteristic  statement  of  the  Yahwist,  that  the  rain 
was,  7.  c,  it  rained,  on  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty 
nights.* 

13.  In  vv.  7  and  10  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  Noah 
embarked  before  the  date  set  for  the  beginning  of  the 
Flood.  Here  the  Priestly  narrator  says  that  the  patri- 
arch waited  until  the  last  moment,  entering  the  ark  on 
that  very  day,  he  and  his  family  with  him.f 

a  correct  idea  of  the  limits  as  well  as  the  character  of  the  rainy 
season  in  Palestine: 


Months 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May. 

Rainy  days- 

1.50 

5-31 

9.04 

10.28 

10.43 

8.51 

5-4S 

»-59 

Ins,  of  rain.. 

0.514 

1.664 

4.718 

5-479 

5.207 

3531 

1-448 

0.190 

*  The  Babylonian  story,  also,  represents  the  agency  by  which 
the  Flood  was  produced  as  a  storm;  one,  however,  which  lasted 
only  six  days  and  nights.  See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  238  f. ;  Appen- 
dix, 11.  96  ff. 

t  The  singular,  referring  to  Noah,  with  the  Greek  and  Syriac 
versions,  instead  of  CHS'  with  them,  viz.,  his  sons,  the  reading  of 
the  received  text.  The  connective  should  also,  according  to  the 
Samaritans,  be  omitted  between  the  names  Shem  and  Ham.  See 
v.  32;  vi.  10.  On  the  gender  of  the  numeral  nirblT)  sec  Gcs.  §  97, 
I,  K. 


VII.  I4-I8]  COMMENTS  207 

14.  Moreover,  he  appears  to  teach  that  all  the  beasts, 
cattle,  creeping  things  and  birds  were  put  aboard  the 
same  day. 

15.  They  came  by  t"wos,  in  pairs,  of  all  flesh,*  from 
all  the  species  without  exception.! 

16.  All  this  did  Noah,  as  God  had  commanded  him ; 
and  Yahweh  shut  him  in.  The  last  clause  is  evidently 
a  Yahwistic  fragment.  If  so,  however,  it  must  originally 
have  preceded  v.  10,  where  the  storm  is  represented  as 
having  already  begun.  It  naturally  attaches  itself  to  the 
last  clause  of  v.  9. 

1 7.  The  next  clause  is  usually  interpreted  as  a  reiter- 
ation of  the  substance  of  vv.  10  and  12,  the  phrase  forty 
days  being  a  harmonistic  addition.  \  The  **  dreadful  mo- 
notony" (Delitzsch)  thus  produced  can,  and  should,  be 
relieved  by  referring  the  whole  clause  to  the  compiler, 
and  interpreting  the  forty  days  as  the  measure,  not  of 
the  duration  of  the  Flood,  as  it  is  naturally  understood 
in  V.  12,  but  of  the  length  of  the  first  stage  in  the  rise 
of  the  water.  The  meaning  of  the  verse  in  its  present 
form,  therefore,  is  that,  when  the  Flood  had  lasted  the 
forty  days  of  v.  1 2,  the  water  had  increased  to  such  a 
depth  that  it  lifted  the  ark  off  the  earth.  § 

18.  The  Priestly  parallel  to  17b  occupies  the  next 
three  verses.  For  increased  it  has  prevailed,  grew  in 
power  as  well  as  in  volume,  and  increased  greatly. 

*  The  article  before  "IITDj  fleshy  in  the  received  text  is  contrary 
to  the  usage  of  this  writer  (vi.  12,  17,  19),  and  should  be  omitted. 
So  the  Samaritans. 

t  The  Babylonian  Noah  took  with  him  into  his  ship,  besides  his 
family  and  relatives,  cattle  and  beasts  of  the  field  and  artisans  of 
all  sorts.     See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  234  f. ;  Appendix,  11.  85  ff. 

t  Budde(Z)'6^,  262  ff.),  however,  explains  CV  C^^^HIS  as  a  cor- 
ruption of  C^I2'  ivatcr. 

§  On  the  construction,  see  v.  3 ;  Ges.  §  1 1 1,  R  3. 


2o8  THE   WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [VII.  19-23 

19.  These  are  strong  terms,  yet  they  do  not  seem  to 
the  author  adequately  to  describe  the  mighty  volume  of 
the  destroying  clement.  The  water,  he  declares,  pre- 
vailed very  greatly,  surpassed  all  bounds,  so  that  all 
the  high,  i.  c,  highest  mountains,  not  only  in  the  region 
in  which  Noah  had  lived,  but  under  all  heaven,  were 
covered,  completely  submerged.     Comp.  Delitzsch. 

20.  And  still  the  water  rose;  nor  was  its  all-engulfing 
increase  checked  until  it  had  reached  the  height  of  fif- 
teen cubits  farther  upward,  and  the  mountains,  even 
the  highest,  were  covered  to  that  depth.  Thus  it  was 
possible  for  the  ark,  which  seems  to  have  had  a  draft  of 
about  fifteen  cubits  (viii.  4),  to  float  over  the  highest 
peaks. 

21.  The  destruction  wrought  was  world-wide  and  com- 
plete. All  flesh  that  moved  on  the  earth  perished, 
not  only  the  animals  of  every  sort,  but  all  mankind. 

22.  The  Yah  wist  tells  the  same  story  in  other  words. 
Every  thing,  he  says,  in  whose  nostrils  was  the 
breath  of  life  *  (ii.  7)  on  the  dry  land,  i.  e.y  exclusive 
of  the  fishes,  died. 

23.  Thus,  adds  the  same  writer,  Yahweh  f  wiped 
out,  as  in  vii.  4  he  threatened  to  do,  all  the  beings  that 
w^ere  on  the  face  of  the  ground.  An  editorial  hand  has 
amplified  this  statement  by  inserting  details  borrowed 
from  the  Priestly  narrative,  as  in  vi.  7,  and  repeating, 
they  were  wiped  off  the  earth.     The  Yahwist  con- 

*  The  received  text  has  □'•''n  nil  ntttC3»  the  breath  of  the  spirit 
of  life,  a  combination  of  the  original  readin,*;,  D"^"^!!  n^tCD»  the 
breath  of  life  (ii.  7),  with  the  corresponding  Priestly  expression, 
C^^n  nn,  the  spirit  of  life  (vi.  1 7). 

t  The  divine  name  is  wanting  in  the  received  text,  probably 
through  the  carelessness  of  a  copyist.  Comp.  Budde  {BU,  266), 
who  supposes  the  compiler  to  have  omitted  it  for  some  unknown 
rcisoii. 


VII.  23-VIII.  I.]  COMMENTS  209 

eludes  this  part  of  his  story  with  the  words,  and  there 
were  left  only  Noah  and  those  that  were  with  him 
in  the  ark.  *^ 

24.  The  statement  with  which  the  Priestly  narrator 
closes  this  part  of  his  description  of  the  Flood  has  been 
misinterpreted.  When  he  says  that  the  water  pre- 
vailed for  a  certain  length  of  time,  he  does  not  mean 
that  it  remained  at  or  above  a  given  height  (Murphy) 
during  that  period.  In  vv.  18-22  prevail  denotes  in- 
crease in  power  with  increase  in  volume,  and  there  is  no 
warrant  for  giving  it  a  different  signification  in  this  con- 
nection. Indeed,  the  fact  that,  according  to  this  author, 
the  sluices  of  the  deep  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were 
not  closed  until  the  end  of  the  given  period  (viii.  2  f.) 
makes  it  necessary  to  conclude  that  he  here  intends  to 
say  that  the  height  reached  by  the  water  was  reached 
by  a  continuous  rise  lasting  a  hundred  and  fifty  days. 
See  also  17a,  the  insertion  of  which  can  only  be  explained 
on  this  supposition. 

The  rise  just  described  finally  reached  its  limit  and 
was  followed  by 

(b)  A  Gradual  Subsidence  (viii.  1-14).  i.  The  turning- 
point,  according  to  the  Priestly  narrator,  was  reached 
when  God  remembered  Noah,  and  his  covenant  to 
save  the  patriarch  and  the  remaining  occupants  of  the 
ark.f  Then  he  caused  a  wind  to  pass  over  the  earth, 
and  as  a  result  the  water  fell,  or,  strictly  speaking,  be- 
gan to  fall.     See  Ex.  xiv.  21  ;  Num.  xii.  31  (J). 

*  See  Budde  {BU,  267).  Dillmann  refers  the  clause  to  A  (P), 
while  Holzinger  {Gen.)  pronounces  it  composite  ;  but  its  brevity  and 
simplicity  show  that  neither  of  these  views  is  tenable. 

t  The  Syriac  Version  adds  the  birds,  and  the  Greek  both  them 
and  the  creeping  things. 


210  THE  WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [VIII.  2-4 

2.  The  wind,  however,  would  have  been  ineffectual, 
had  not  the  sources  of  the  inundation  been  stopped.  The 
writer  therefore  adds  that,  at  the  same  time,  the  sluices 
of  the  deep  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  closed. 
The  Yahwist  seems  not  to  have  known  of  the  miraculous 
wind.  He  accounts  for  the  subsidence  of  the  water  by 
simply  noting  that  the  rain  from  heaven,  by  which  the 

'deluge  was  caused,  ceased. 

3.  He  then  proceeds  to  say  that,  from  that  time, 
which,  as  appears  from  vii.  12,  was  at  the  end  of  forty 
days  from  the  beginning  of  the  Flood,  the  water  con- 
tinually withdrew.  This  was  the  thought  of  the  Yah- 
wist ;  but  the  Priestly  narrator  consistently  dated  the 
beginning  of  the  subsidence  from  the  end  *  of  a  hun- 
dred and  fifty  days,  and  his  view  is  here  adopted  by 
the  compiler. 

4.  During  this  long  and  anxious  period  God  had  not 
really  forgotten  his  servant.  While  the  water  was  rising 
he  was  steering  the  ark  to  the  spot  where  it  w^ould  soon- 
est find  anchorage.  The  result  was  that  in  the  seventh 
month,  on  the  seventeenth  f  of  the  month,  or,  if  one 
reckon  thirty  days  to  the  month,  as  this  author  seems  to 
have  done,  on  the  very  day  the  water  began  to  subside, 
the  ark  grounded.  The  place  thus  divinely  selected 
was  in  the  mountains,  not  the  mountain,  of  'Ararat, 
the  Urartu  of  the  Assyrians,  a  country  lying  on  the 
Araxes  (Aras)  east  of  Lake  Van.  See  Schrader,  KA  T, 
52  f.  ;  Die.  Bib.,  art.  Ararat.  Among  the  mountains  of 
that  region  is  one,  called  by  the  Armenians  Massis,  which 
is  commonly  identified  with  that  on  which  the  ark  rested. 

*  For  n«")  read  yp»  the  proper  form  of  the  word  meaning  end 
in  temporal  clauses.  So  the  Samaritans,  here  and  in  Deu.  xiv.  28. 
See  also  xvi.  3  (P). 

t  Here,  as  in  vii.  11,  the  Greek  Version  has  tlic  twcjity-sevctith. 


VIII.  4-6]  COMMENTS  2 1 1 

It  is  nearly  17,000  feet  high,  and  consequently  covered 
with  perpetual  snow.  It  has  a  rival  in  Mt.  Judi,  in  Kur- 
distan, southwest  of  Lake  Van,  which  is  favored  by 
orientals,  both  Jew  and  Christian.*  Wherever  the  moun- 
tains here  meant  were,  they  were  evidently  the  highest 
with  which  the  author  was  acquainted,  and,  in  his  view, 
the  highest  in  existence. 

5.  The  first  stage  in  the  decrease  of  the  water  was 
completed  in  the  tenth  month,  on  the  first  of  the 
month,!  when  the  tops  of  the  mountains,  these  high- 
est, including  the  one  on  which  the  ark  lay,  appeared. 
Taken  strictly,  this  would  mean  that  the  water  fell  a 
little  more  than  fifteen  cubits  in  about  seventy-four  days. 

6.  There  follows  a  verse  whose  original  meaning  is 
clear.  It  is  evidently  from  the  hand  of  the  Yahwist. 
The  forty  days,  therefore,  must  originally,  as  in  vii.  4 
and  12,  have  been  the  forty  days  of  the  storm  ;  the  idea 
of  the  author  being,  that  Noah  opened  the  window  of 
the  ark  as  soon  as  the  rain  ceased.  Comp.  Lenormant, 
BH^  414.  In  its  present  setting  it  means  something 
entirely  different.  The  forty  days  would  naturally  be  in- 
terpreted as  the  next  forty  after  the  date  last  mentioned, 

*  For  an  account  of  an  ascent  of  Mt.  Ararat,  see  Allen  &  Sacht- 
leben,  AAB,  43  ff.  The  identification  of  the  place  where  Noah 
landed  with  Mt.  Judi  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  the  Targum 
and  the  Syriac  Version.  Berosus  in  his  version  of  the  Babylonian 
account  of  the  Flood,  also,  represents  Xisuthros  as  landing  in  the 
region  of  the  latter.  See  Cory,  AE,  63.  The  original,  however, 
says  that  the  ship  in  which  he  was  saved  grounded  on  Nisir,  a 
mountain  elsewhere  described  as  beyond  the  Tigris  between  the 
thirty-fifth  and  thirty-sixth  parallel  of  latitude.  See  Schrader,  J^B^ 
vi.  I,  238  ff. ;  /CAT,  53;  Appendix,  1.  141  ;  £>/c.  Bib.,  art.  Ararat. 

t  The  Greek  translators  seem  to  have  understood  until  the  toith 
month  as  meaning  until  the  end  of  it ;  hence  they  chan<T:ed  the  date 
of  the  appearance  of  the  mountains  to  the  first  of  the  eleventh 
vionth.     See  ii.  2. 


212  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [YUl.  6,7 

the  first  of  the  tenth  month  ;  and  this  must  have  been  the 
idea  of  the  compiler,  although  it  seems  strange  that,  if 
the  mountains,  including  the  one  on  which  the  ark  lay, 
were  already  visible  at  the  beginning  of  the  period,  the 
dove  should  not  have  found  a  resting-place  when  released 
at  the  end  of  it  (t'.  9).*  There  is  no  other  interpretation 
to  which  there  are  not  equally  serious  objections.  Thus, 
if  the  forty  days  be  reckoned  from  the  seventeenth  of 
the  seventh  month  (Dillmann),  even  on  the  supposition 
that  the  first  dove  was  not  released  until  seven  days  after 
the  raven,  the  second  will  have  brought  the  olive  branch 
to  Noah  twenty  (74  —  54)  days  before  the  tops  of  the 
mountains  were  visible.  The  clause  that  he  had  made, 
of  course,  refers,  not  to  the  ark,  but  to  the  window,  of 
the  oriental  pattern,  in  it.f     Comp.  vi.  16, 

7.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  window  was  in  the 
roof,  so  that  Noah  could  not  see  his  surroundings  (Budde), 
and  that  this  is  the  reason  he  employed  the  birds  as  his 
messengers ;  but  v.  13  seems  unfavorable  to  this  supposi- 
tion. A  more  probable  explanation  is,  that  he  wished  a 
larger  knowledge  of  the  situation  than  his  own  eyes  could 
give  him.  To  this  end,  according  to  the  text,  he  first 
sent  out  a  raven,  one  of  the  strongest  of  wing  and  keen- 
est of  eye  among  his  feathered  companions.  But  the 
bird,  being  comparatively  wild,  and  able  to  subsist  on 
the  carrion  which  still  floated  on  the  water,  went  to  and 

*  This  difficulty  is  relieved  by  the  fact  that,  in  the  Babylonian 
story  the  first  two  birds  return  to  the  ship  without  finding  a  resting- 
place,  although  Mt.  Nisir  had  appeared  as  an  island  a  week  before 
the  first  of  them  had  been  sent  forth.  See  Schrader,  A'B,  vi.  i, 
238  fF. ;  Appendix,  11.  140  ff. 

t  The  definitcness  of  the  expression  does  not  necessarily  indi- 
cate that  this  window  was  the  only  one  in  the  ark  (Dillmann).  The 
article  is  used  in  the  sense  of  a  certain  to  designate  a  person  or 
object  as  tlie  one  in  the  author's  mind.     See  v.  7;  Ges.  §  126,  4. 


V 1 1 1 .  7,  8]  COMMENTS  2 1 3 

fro  continually,*  never  coming  back  to  the  ark,  until 
the  "water  dried  off  the  earth  and  its  mate  also  was 
released. 

8.  The  natural  inference  from  the  close  connection 
between  vv.  6  and  7  is,  that  the  raven  was  set  free  imme- 
diately after  the  rain  had  ceased.  It  now  becomes  a 
question,  how  long  Noah  waited  for  the  return  of  the 
raven  before  he  despatched  his  second  messenger,  a 
dove.  This  verse,  in  its  present  form,  contains  no  in- 
formation on  the  subject :  a  fact  which,  in  view  of  the  care 
with  which  the  rest  of  the  story  {vv.  10,  12)  is  articulated, 
seems  significant.  It  has  been  explained  by  saying  that, 
either  by  accident  or  design,  a  temporal  clause  that  once 
began  this  verse  has  been  omitted. f  This,  however,  is 
not  the  only  explanation  that  suggests  itself.  A  better 
one  is  based  on  the  supposition  that  the  verse  is  the 
original  continuation  of  ^'.  6 ;   a  supposition  supported 

*  The  Greek  and  Latin  versions  have  the  equivalent  of  S!J"^1 
!2tt?  Wbl'  ajid  it  went  forth  and  returned  not^  and  this  is  the  reading 
adopted  by  Ball ;  but  the  Samaritans  have  substantially  the  received 
text,  merely  substituting  finite  verbs  for  the  two  infinidves,  and  the 
Syriac  Version,  although  it  follows  the  Greek  so  far  as  to  render 
the  second  infinitive  by  a  finite  verb  with  the  negative,  has  pre- 
served the  first  as  in  the  Hebrew  idiom.  Moreover,  as  Holzinger 
suggests,  the  following  clause  seems  to  forbid  any  change  in  the 
text. 

t  So  Budde  {BU,  272)  and  others.  Ball  first  rearranges  the  text 
by  removing  v.  7  from  its  present  position  and  inserting  it  after 
V.  9;  then  connects  the  two  by  supplying  and  he  luaited  seven  days 
at  the  beginning  of  the  former.  One  of  the  reasons  given  for  the 
transposition  is,  that  the  whole  passage  relative  to  the  birds  is  thus 
brought  into  agreement  with  the  Chaldean  account.  The  alleged 
agreement,  however,  does  not  result;  for  the  raven  remains  the 
second  of  four,  whereas,  in  the  Babylonian  account  it  is  the  last  of 
three,  birds  released.  See  Schrader,  KBy  vi.  i,  240  f. ;  Appeixiix, 
11.  153  f. 


214         THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [VIII.  S-ii 

by  two  important  considerations  :  (/)  The  raven  has  no 
proper  place  in  the  narrative,  being  of  a  different  species 
from  the  rest  of  the  birds,  and  having  no  necessary  or 
clearly  distinguishable  function.  {2)  This  verse  gives,  as 
V.  7  does  not,  but  naturally  would,  if  it  were  a  part  of 
the  original  story,  the  reason  why  Noah  sent  forth  the 
bird,  viz.,  to  see  if  the  water  had  subsided.*  These 
reasons  seem  convincing.  But  omit  v.  7,  and  v.  6  fur- 
nishes the  date  for  the  release  of  the  dove.  When  the 
episode  of  the  raven,  which  seems  to  have  been  sug- 
gested by  the  Babylonian  story,  was  inserted,  a  temporal 
clause  might  have  been  added,  but,  if  it  had  been  the 
one  suggested,  it  would  have  emphasized  rather  than  re- 
lieved the  difficulties  in  the  chronology  of  the  story. 

9.  The  result  of  Noah's  first  trial  was  what  might  have 
been  expected.  The  dove  returned,  having  found  no 
resting  -  place,  because,  the  rain  having  so  recently 
ceased,  there  was  water  on  the  face  of  the  whole 
earth.  This  statement  conflicts  with  v.  5  (P),  as  has 
been  shown,  but  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  the 
Yahwistic  narrative. 

10.  Noah  waited!  seven  days  more:  i.  e.y  in  the 
original  meaning  of  the  words,  seven  days  in  addition  to 
the  forty  that  he  had  already  spent  in  the  ark  :  %  then  he 
again  sent  a,  possibly  the,  dove  forth  from  the  ark. 

11.  This  time  the  dove,  having  found  places  to  alight 
and  rest,  did  not  return  until  eventide,  and  then  it 
came  bringing  a  fresh  olive  leaf,  one  freshly  plucked 

*  In  the  Greek  Version  the  clause  has  been  inserted  in  v.  7,  but 
not  omitted,  as  it  should  have  been,  from  this  one. 

t  For  brr^l  here  and  bp'*^^  m  v.  I2  Olshausen  and  others  read 
bnri-    Comp.  Ball. 

X  This  would  be  sufficiently  clear  without  the  words  T)^  and 
n'^nnS;  hence  it  is  possible  that  they  are  not  original. 


VIII.  II-I3]  COMMENTS  215 

from  a  tree,  in  its  mouth.  Then  Noah,  knowing  that 
tlic  olive  dkl  not  l^iow  in  hiii^h  altitudes,  concluded  that 
the  -water  had  greatly  subsided. 

12.  After  a  second  interval  of  seven  days  he  set  free 
a  third  dove,  or  the  same  bird  a  third  time.  It  found 
the  earth  so  nearly  dry  that  it  could  procure  food  without 
difficulty,  and  it  did  not  return  to  him  again. 

13.  The  Yahwist  next  told  what  Noah  did,  when  the 
dove  failed  to  return  as  on  the  other  occasions  of  its 
release ;  but  his  account  is  here  interrupted  by  another 
bit  of  chronology  from  the  Priestly  narrative,  to  the 
effect  that  it  was  in  the  six  hundred  and  first  year  of 
the  life  of  Noah,*  and,  indeed,  in  the  first  month  and 
on  the  first  of  the  month,  when  the  "water  had  dried 
off  the  earth,  i.  c,  as  must  be  inferred  from  v.  14,  had 
disappeared  from  the  surface.  Thus,  while  the  Yahwist 
represents  the  water  that  fell  during  the  forty  days  of 
the  storm  as  subsiding  in  fourteen  days,  the  Priestly 
narrator  allows  more  time  for  the  decrease  than  for  the 
increase  of  the  deluge ;  ninety  of  the  one  hundred  and 
sixty-four  days  being  required  for  its  disappearance  after 
the  tops  of  the  mountains  became  visible.  Of  these 
three  months  the  last  extract  from  the  Yahwistic  nar- 
rative is  made  to  account  for  fifty-four  days.  Of  the 
remaining  thirty-six  the  compiler  may  have  given  from 
one  to  seven  to  the  interval  between  vv.  7  and  8  ;  the 
greater  number  would  represent  that  after  v.  12.  The 
chronological  data  just  given  are  followed  by  the  sequel 
to  V.  12,  in  which  the  Yahwist  recites  that,  when  Noah 
perceived  that  the  dove  was  not  to  return,  he  removed 
a  part  of  the  covering  of  the  ark,  perhaps  the  lid  of  a 
hatchway,  and  found  that  the  ground  was  dry. 

*  The  phrase  of  the  life  of  Noah  is  supplied  from  vii.  11  on  the 
authority  of  the  Greek  Version. 


2l6  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [VIII.  14 

14.  The  Yahwist  apparently  intends  to  represent  Noah 
as  making  the  above  discovery  very  soon  after  the  failure 
of  the  dove  to  return  to  its  cote.  The  compiler  divided 
the  verse  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  his  sources  into 
greater  harmony.  In  this  way  it  is  made  to  appear  that, 
although  the  dove  left  the  ark  not  later  than  the  first  of 
the  first  month,  Noah  did  not  act  upon  the  natural  in- 
ference from  its  disappearance  until  the  second  month, 
on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  the  month,  for  not  until 
that  date,  according  to  the  Priestly  narrator,  was  the 
earth  dry.  These  fifty-six  days,  more  or  less,  added  to 
the  number  that  had  already  elapsed,  make  the  duration 
of  the  subsidence,  in  round  numbers,  two  hundred  and 
twenty,  instead  of  fourteen  days,  and  the  length  of  time 
between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  deluge  about 
three  hundred  and  seventy,  instead  of  fifty-four  days. 
Now  the  number  three  hundred  and  seventy  does  not 
tally  with  any  measure  of  time  known  to  have  been  in 
use  among  the  Hebrews.  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
the  number  one  hundred  and  fifty,  in  vi.  24  and  vii.  3,  is 
a  round  number,  that  the  months  of  this  author  are  lunar 
months,  and  that  the  year  and  ten,  or,  counting  both 
termini,  eleven  days,  amounts  to  a  solar  year  of  three 
hundred  and  sixty-five  days.* 

*  Compare  Dillmann,  who  holds  that  the  length  of  the  Flood 
according  to  the  Priestly  narrator  was  originally  twice  a  hundred 
and  fifty,  or  three  hundred  days,  and  that  vv.  13a  and  14  represent 
a  later  theory ;  and  Holzinger,  who,  on  the  other  hand,  declares 
vii.  24  and  viii.  3b,  the  passages  in  which  the  number  one  hundred 
and  fifty  occuns,  editorial  additions.  The  Babylonians  made  the 
duration  of  the  Flood  much  shorter  than  even  the  Yahwist.  In 
the  original  of  the  story  the  total  number  of  days  seems  to  have 
been  fourteen.  See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  238  £f.;  Appendix,  11. 
128  ff.;  comp.  Lcnormant,  BIT,  416  f.  This  statement  is  based  on 
the  supposition  that  the  birds  were  all  set  free  on  the  same  day; 


VIII.  15-19]  COMMENTS  217 

When  the  water  had  subsided,  Noah  and  his  com- 
panions found  themselves  in  undisputed  possession  of  the 
earth.  God  did  not,  however,  permit  them  to  enter  upon 
their  inheritance  until  he  had  instructed  his  servant  with 
reference  to 

(3)  The  Future  of  the  Survivors  (viii.  15-ix.  17). 
Here,  too,  the  narrative  is  twofold,  but  the  component 
parts  have  been  so  arranged  that  the  casual  reader  does 
not  detect  their  duplicate  character.  The  whole  may  be 
divided  into  three  sections,  the  first  of  which,  from  the 
content  of  the  Yahwistic  extract  incorporated  with  it, 
may  be  entitled 

(a)  NoaJi  s  Offering  iym.  15-22).  15.  It  opens  with  a 
description,  in  the  characteristic  style  of  thePriestly  nar- 
rator, of  the  debarkation  of  the  inmates  of  the  ark. 

16.  In  the  command  to  go  forth  from  the  ark  notice 
that  Noah's  wife  takes  precedence  of  her  sons.  Comp. 
V.  \%\  also  vi.  18  ;  vii.  (7),  13. 

17.  The  number  and  order  of  the  classes  of  animals 
that  Noah  is  instructed  to  bring  forth  *  correspond  to 
those  of  vi.  20.  Comp.  v.  19;  vii.  14,  21  (23).  It  is 
God's  will  that  they  shall  again,  as  before  the  Flood, 
swarm  in  the  earth. 

18.  Comp.  V.  16. 

19.  The  text  is  doubtful,!  but  the  meaning  is  clear  : 

such  is  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  language  used.  Berosus, 
however,  in  his  version  of  the  story  says  that  there  was  an  interv^al 
of  some  days  between  the  hero's  attempts  to  learn  the  condition  of 
the  earth.     See  Cory,  AF,  61. 

*  The  form  S!^*^?!?  which  the  Massoretes  prefer  to  the  original 
reading.  Ball  characterizes  as  *'  a  mere  fancy."  Bottcher  (§  437,  /"), 
however,  explains  it  as  a  case  of  dissimilation  after  \^"lSn.  See 
also  Ps.  V.  9/8. 

t  The  reading  adopted  is  that  of  the  Samaritans,  of  which  the 
received  text  appears  to  be  a  corruption  explicable  by  supposing 


2i8        THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [VIII.  19-21 

viz.,  that  all  the  animals  preserved,  in  obedience  to  God's 
command,  left  the  ark  with  Noah.  The  beasts  here  in- 
clude domestic  animals,  just  as,  in  :-.  17,  the  cattle 
include  wild  beasts.     See  i.  30 ;  vi.  20. 

20.  In  the  present  text  vv.  15-19  serve  as  an  intro- 
duction to  an  extract  icov.  20-22)  from  the  Yahwistic  nar- 
rative describing  the  sacrifice  by  which  Noah  expressed 
his  gratitude  for  deliverance.  He  had  no  sooner  left  the 
ark  than  he  erected  an  altar  to  Yahweh,  on  which  he 
offered  the  seventh  of  the  animals  (vii.  2)  representing 
each  of  the  clean  species  of  cattle  and  birds  in  the  ark, 
as  burnt  offerings,  i.  e.,  offerings  to  be  consumed  entire, 
on  the  altar.  This  is  the  first  mention  of  such  offer- 
ings.    Comp.  iv.  4. 

21.  The  patriarch's  prompt  and  generous  recognition 
of  the  divine  hand  in  his  experience  did  not  remain  un- 
rewarded. Yahweh,  says  the  author,  using  an  anthro- 
pomorphism that  sounds  like  a  relic  of  Babylonian  myth- 
ology,* but,  strange  to  say,  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  Priestly  narrative  (Lev.  i.  9,  13;  etc.)  f  —  Yahweh 
smelled  the  pleasant  odor,  and,  touched  by  the  devo- 
tion it  symbolized,  said  to  himself,  lit.  to  his  Jiem't,  I 
will  not  again  curse  the  ground.  The  curse  to  which 
reference  is  here  made  is  generally  identified  with  the 
recent  visitation  (Dillmann).  But,  as  has  been  repeat- 
that  a  copyist  by  mistake  transposed  V\y^T\  b^  and  tC^nn  bD 
and  then  inserted  a  bs  before  tynilj  without  the  article,  to  make 
it  intelligible.  The  Greek  Version  has  and  all  the  beasts,  and  all 
the  cattle,  and  every  bird,  atid  every  reptile  moving  on  the  earth ; 
the  Syriac,  and  all  the  beasts,  and  all  the  cattle,  and  all  the  birds, 
everything  that  creepeth  on  the  earth.  The  latter,  without  the  sec- 
ond and,  is  Ball's  reading. 

•  See  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  240  f . ;  Appendix,  11.  160  ff. 
t  This  fact  shows  that  the  expression  does  not  necessarily  imply 
sensuous  notions  of  the  Deity. 


VIII.  21]  COMMENTS  219 

edly  noticed,  the  Flood  is  not  represented  as  producing 
any  lasting  effect  upon  the  earth,  and  therefore  could 
not  properly  be  called  a  curse.  Add  to  this,  not  only 
that  the  author  of  v.  29  connects  this  passage  with  iii. 
17,  but  that  the  phraseology  employed  is  evidently  a 
reminiscence  of  the  latter,  and  it  seems  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  the  author  here  intends  to  represent  Yah- 
weh  as  resolving  not  again  to  curse  the  ground,  as  he  did 
when  'Adham  fell,  on  men  s  account,  for  the  purpose 
of  punishing  them.  The  next  clause  is  capable  of  two 
or  three  interpretations,  but  it  is  usually  regarded  as  a 
reason  for  the  resolution  just  taken  by  Yahweh.  This 
view,  however,  is  forbidden  by  the  situation.  Mankind 
at  this  time,  according  to  the  author,  consisted  of  eight 
persons,  who  had  been  spared  because,  while  their  fel- 
lows were  utterly  evil,  Noah  at  least  was  of  the  opposite 
character.  The  interpretation  mentioned  would  imply 
that  the  design  of  the  hearts  of  the  patriarch  and  his 
family,  also,  was  evil  from  their  youth,  from  the  age  of 
accountability.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  by  treating  the 
clause  as  explanatory  of  the  preceding  phrase,  on  mens 
account,  reproducing  the  reason  for  the  Flood  as  given 
in  vi.  5.  Yahweh  is  thus  made  to  say  that  he  will  not 
again  punish  men  as  he  did  'Adham  on  account  of  hav- 
ing become,  or,  to  put  it  more  idiomatically,  though  they 
become,  as  thoroughly  evil  as,  following  the  example  of 
'Adham,  they  were  when  the  Flood  was  decreed.*  In 
vi.  5  f.  Yahweh  was  so  moved  by  the  wickedness  of  men 
that  he  was  sorry  to  have  made  them.     Here  the  specta- 

*  In  the  al:)Ove  discussion  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  whole 
of  V.  21  is  by  one  author,  a  supposition  that  is  favored  by  the  in- 
terpretation proposed.  If  the  curse  of  the  first  half  of  the  verse  is 
the  Flood,  according  to  Holzingcr,  who  adopts  this  view,  the  ori- 
ginality of  Yahweh's  first  resolution  becomes  questionable. 


220     niK   WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [VIII.  21-IX.  2 

cle  of  the  piety  of  his  servant  makes  him  regret  that  he 
has  been  so  severe  with  them,  and,  as  he  recalls,  to  speak 
after  the  manner  of  the  author,  the  multitude  of  men  and 
animals  that  perished  in  the  Flood,  he  adds,  nor  will  I 
again  smite  everything  that  liveth,  as  I  have  done ; 
which,  ht)\vevcr,  does  not  imply  that  he  will  henceforth 
let  sin,  no  matter  how  flagrant,  go  unpunished.* 

22.  These  limitations  imposed  upon  himself  by  Yah- 
weh  are  followed  by  an  express  guaranty  of  the  stability 
of  nature.  While  t  the  earth  endureth,  lit.  all  the  days 
of  the  earth,  — ^.n&  the  earth  is  a  favorite  Hebrew  symbol 
for  stability  and  perpetuity  (Ps.  civ.  5),  —  seedtime  and 
harvest,  like  cold  and  heat,  characteristic  marks  of 
summer  and  winter,  and  day  and  night  shall  not 
cease.  The  Flood,  it  appears,  even  according  to  the 
Yahwist,  was  a  serious  disturbance  of  the  order  of  nature. 

The  Priestly  narrator  now  resumes  his  story  with  a 
paragraph  detailing  the  instructions  given  to  Noah  on 

(b)  The  Sacredness  of  Life  (ix.  1-7).  i.  The  begin- 
ning of  the  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  race  is  signal- 
ized by  a  repetition  of  the  blessing  bestowed  upon  the 
first  man  and  woman.  The  first  part.  Increase  and 
multiply,  that  ye  may  fill  the  earth,  is  reproduced 
verba ti7n.\  See  i.  28. 

2.  The  rest  of  it  is  slightly  modified.  In  i.  28  man  is 
encouraged  to  assert  his  lordship  over  the  animals,  as  if 
they  would  instinctively  recognize  in  him  a  superior  being 
and    peaceably  submit  to  be  controlled.     The   general 

•  In  the  Babylonian  account  this  point  receives  attention.  See 
Schrader,  A'/?,  242  f.  ;  Appendix,  11.  182  ff. 

t  For  the  ir,  still,  of  the  received  text  read,  with  the  Samari- 
tans, ir,  until. 

\  The  Greek  Version  adds  and  have  ?nastery  over  it. 


IX.  2-4]  COMMENTS  221 

corruption  has  made  the  fulfilment  of  this  ideal  impos- 
sible. Still,  the  brute  must  be  held  in  subjection  to 
humanity.  God  promises  that  he  will  inspire  with  fear 
and  dread  of  mankind  the  beasts  of  the  earth  and 
the  birds  of  heaven,  and  thus  give  them,  as  well  as  the 
smaller  animals,  with  which  the  ground  teemeth,  and 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  into  man's  hand. 

3.  Moreover,  he  decrees  that  every  moving  thing 
that  liveth  shall  be  man's  to  eat.  Like  the  green 
herb,  he  says,  I  give  you  them  all.  The  last  clause  is 
a  reference  to  i.  29.  It  calls  attention  to  the  fact  tha,t, 
according  to  the  Priestly  narrative,  man  had  not  hitherto 
eaten  flesh  of  any  sort.  Comp.  Delitzsch.  Now,  however, 
he  is  given  permission  to  slay  and  eat,  not  only  the  cattle, 
but  animals  of  every  species  without  exception.  In  other 
words,  the  author  here  expressly  teaches  that,  in  Noah's 
time,  the  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean,  recog- 
nized by  the  Yahwist  in  vii.  2  and  viii.  20,  did  not  exist. 
His  idea,  as  appears  later  in  his  work,  was  that  this 
distinction,  with  the  observance  of  it,  was  introduced  by 
Moses.     See  Lev.  xi.  i  ff. 

4.  There  is  but  one  restriction  :  Flesh  with  its  life, 
i.  e.,  as  is  at  once  explained,  its  blood,*  ye  shall  not 
eat.  No  instructions  are  given  with  reference  to  the 
disposal  of  the  blood.  The  author  cannot  have  thought 
of  it  as  sacrificed,  for  sacrifices  of  all  kinds,  according  to 
his  theory,  began  with  Moses.  See  Lev.  xvii.  i  ff.  He 
would  doubtless  have  said  it  was  poured  upon  the  ground 
and  covered  with  dust,  as  the  law  he  attributes  to  Moses 
requires  in  the  case  of  animals  slain  in  hunting.     See 

*  Ball  treats  1^1  as  a  gloss  ;  but  the  use  of  ^lyf^l^  your  blood, 
in  V.  5,  especially  in  view  of  its  emphatic  position,  seems  to  favor 
the  present  reading. 


222  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [IX.  4-7 

Lev.  xvii.  13.*  On  the  relation  of  the  blood  to  life,  see 
further  Lev.  xvii.  10  ff.  The  prohibition  includes  not 
only  flesh  from  living  animals,  but  that  of  those  not 
properly  bled ;  e.  g.,  one  that  has  died  of  disease  or  been 
killed  by  another.  See  Lev.  xvii.  15.  Compare  the  cruel 
or  disgusting  practices  of  various  other  ancient  peoples. 

5.  The  blood  of  beasts  may  be  shed,  when  their  flesh 
is  required  by  men  for  food ;  but  the  shedding  of  men's 
blood  is  strictly  prohibited,  except  in  punishment  for 
crime.  If  it  is  shed,  God  will  make  demand  of  the 
•shedder  for  it ;  whether  it  be  any  beast  that  has  slain  a 
man,  or  any  one's  brother. 

6.  The  penalty  is  one.  He,  whether  beast  or  man, 
that  sheddeth  men's  blood,  by  men  shall  his  blood 
be  shed.  This  law  gives  any  member  of  the  community 
to  which  the  victim  belonged,  although  the  next  of  kin 
would  be  the  natural  avenger,  the  right  to  take  the  life 
of  the  homicide,  and  that  without  inquiring  under  what 
circumstances  the  deed  to  be  avenged  was  committed. 
It  is  intended  to  mirror  the  supposed  practice  of  the 
^early  Hebrews.  For  the  modifications  of  the  law  which 
the  author  attributes  to  Moses,  see  Num.  xxxv.  9  ff.f 
The  reason  given  for  the  peculiar  sacredness  of  men's 
lives  is  that  they  were  made  in  the  image  of  God. 

7.  It  is  theirs,  not  to  kill  and  destroy  one  another,  but 
tf)  multiply,  nay,  swarm,  in  the  earth  and  exercise 
lordship  J  over  it. 

*  Amon<T  the  Arabs  the  pouring  of  the  blood  upon  tlie  ground 
wa.s  a  sacrificial  act,  and  so,  in  all  probability,  although  the  Priestly 
author  thought  otherwise,  it  was  among  the  ancient  Hebrews.  See 
W.  K.  Smith,  A'^-,  216  f. 

t  On  the  history  and  significance  of  the  lex  talionis  among  the 
early  Semites,  see  W.  R.  Smith,  RS,  33  f.,  72,  254,  399. 

X  So  Hall,  following  Nestle,  in  harmony  with  i.  28.  The  received 
text  repeats  ll^"^,  muliiply. 


I X .  8- 1 2]  COMMENTS  223 

In  the  last  paragraph  from  the  Yahwistic  narrative 
(viii.  20  ff.),  although  Yahvveh  is  represented  as  taking  a 
resolution  with  reference  to  his  future  treatment  of  man- 
kind, there  is  no  mention  of  a  formal  covenant,  or  even 
of  the  communication  of  the  divine  purpose  to  the  patri- 
arch. According  to  the  Priestly  narrator  a  covenant  was 
made  and  proclaimed,  the  sign  of  which  was 

(c)  GocVsboiv  ivv.  8-17).  8.  Hitherto  God  has  spoken 
to  Noah  alone.  He  now  reveals  his  gracious  purpose  to 
the  patriarch  and  his  sons  -with  him. 

9.  The  reason  for  so  doing  is  that  they  are  to  be 
parties  to  the  new  covenant.  Comp.  vi.  18.  Their  off- 
spring, the  new  race  to  spring  from  them,  will  inherit  its 
benefits. 

10.  Finally,  all  the  living  creatures  according  to 
their  classes,  having  shared  with  Noah  and  his  family  the 
perils  of  the  Flood  and  the  preserving  care  of  their  Cre- 
ator, are  made  partakers  with  mankind  of  the  divine 
promise.  The  last  clause  is  difficult,  but  the  most  nat- 
ural interpretation  is  that  it  was  meant  to  emphasize  the 
inclusiveness  of  the  covenant,  the  extremes  being  the 
human  survivors  that  go  forth  from-  the  ark  (-:'.  9)  and 
the  beasts  of  the  earth  *  just  mentioned. 

11.  The  content  of  the  covenant  is,  that  all  flesh 
shall  not  again  be  cut  off  by  the  water  of  a  flood  : 
that,  indeed,  there  shall  not  again  be  a  flood  to  rav- 
age f  the  earth.     See  viii.  21. 

12.  The  establishment  of  this  covenant  is  the  free  act 

*  The  last  phrase  is  wanting  in  the  Greek  Version.  Holzinger, 
therefore,  who  insists  upon  interpreting  it  as  meaning  beasts  in 
general,  pronounces  it  an  interpolation.  He  is  then  obliged  to  ex- 
plain the  12  of  h'D'^,/ro/^i  all,  as  a  case  of  dittography. 

t  For  nntT'b  the  Samaritans  read  riTltrnb.     See  vi.  17. 


224  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [IX.  12-14 

of  the  Almighty.    The  sign  of  the  covenant,  too,  which, 
like  the  covenant,  must  endure  to  endless  generations, 

is  of  his  own  choosing.* 

1 3.  The  sign  chosen  he  calls  my  bow.  This  expres- 
sion reminds  one  of  the  Hindoo  myth  in  which  the  bow 
used  by  Indra,  in  shooting  bolts  of  lightning  at  his  ene- 
mies, when  the  storm  is  over  becomes  the  rainbow,  a 
sign  of  peace  to  mankind,  f  See  Dillmann.  This  bow 
God  promises  to  place,  not  once  for  all,  but,  as  the  next 
verse  explains,  at  indefinite  intervals,  in  the  clouds,  to 
serve  as  a  reminder  of  the  covenant  now  established. 
The  author  apparently  thought  that  hitherto  there  had 
been  no  such  thing  as  a  rainbow.  There  are  those  who 
undertake  to  defend  this  opinion  (Keil).  Few  modern 
readers,  however,  will  believe  that  the  laws  of  light  and 
the  properties  of  the  atmosphere  were  so  different  before 
the  Flood  from  what  they  have  been  since,  that  in  that 
early  period  a  rainbow  never  followed  a  shower.  Those, 
therefore,  who  are  concerned  to  maintain  the  infallibility 
of  the  author  generally  adopt  the  less  probable  view,  that 
he  is  here  explaining  the  origin,  not  of  the  rainbow,  but 
of  its  adoption  as  a  sign  (Murphy). 

14.  The  reader  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  fitness 
of  the  rainbow,  appearing  as  it  does  after  a  storm,  to 
strengthen  the  faith  of  the  patriarch  in  God's  promise 
not  again  to  destroy  mankind  or  ravage  the  earth  by  a 
deluge.     The   author   himself   must  have  perceived  its 

*  It  seems  clear  that  the  relative  clause  was  intended  to  describe 
the  covenant ;  yet,  owing  doubtless  to  a  confusion  of  the  two  ideas, 
the  verb  is  not  the  one  (cip  \\\.,  establish)  elsewhere  found  in 
such  a  connection,  but  the  one  CjnD,  give)  used  of  the  promised 
sign.     See  v.  13;  comp.  v.  19. 

t  For  a  reference  to  the  bow  of  Anu,  the  Babylonian  god  of 
heaven,  see  Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  32  f. 


IX.  14-17]  COMMENTS  225 

manward  significance,  but  this  is  not  the  side  that  most 
impressed  him.  It  was  the  Godvvard  side  that  seemed 
to  him  most  important.  This  must  be  borne  in  mind  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  description  of  the  conditions, 
'when  I  overspread  the  earth  "with  a  cloud,  under 
which  the  sign  will  become  operative.  The  cloud  is 
here,  not  a  possible  object  of  fear  to  mankind,  but  a  con- 
venient screen  on  which  the  bow  shall  appear. 

15.  The  purpose  of  the  sign  is  now  stated:  that  I, 
not  mankind,  may  remember  the  covenant,  and  that, 
as  a  result,  the  water  may  not  continue  to  fall  so  long 
as  to  become  a  flood  destroying  all  flesh. 

16.  This  verse  repeats  the  thought  of  the  last  two, 
emphasizing  the  anthropomorphic  features  of  the  repre- 
sentation. 

17.  Comp.  V.  12. 

The  above  discussion  has  made  clear,  (/)  that  the 
Hebrew  story  of  the  Flood  is  composite,  and  {2)  that  the 
two  accounts  interwoven  to  produce  it  present  important 
variations.  Incidentally  it  has  been  shown,  also,  (j)  that 
the  Babylonian  story  is  a  third  account  of  the  same 
event,  differing  in  some  respects  from  both,  but  most 
from  the  later,  of  the  others.*  This  last,  being  the 
oldest  of  the  three,!  and  therefore  nearest  to  the  event 
which  they  all  describe,  must  be  taken  into  account  in 

*  For  a  comparative  view  of  the  three,  see  Schrader,  COT,  i. 
58  ff. ;  Boscawen,  BM^  ii4ff. 

t  The  tablets  from  which  the  modern  world  in  1872  derived  its 
first  knowledge  of  this  story  were  written  in  the  reign  of  Asshur- 
banipal  (668-626  b.  c.) ;  but  they  were  copies  of  others  of  much 
earlier  origin.  One  recently  found,  which  contains  a  fragment  of 
the  story,  is  dated  in  the  reign  of  Ammi-saduga,  who,  according  to 
the  best  authorities,  flourished  before  2000  B.  c.  See  Enc.  Bib. 
art.  Deluge^  6 ;  Jastrow,  RBA^  507. 


226      THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [V I.  cy-lX.  17 

any  attempt  to  determine  the  real  nature  of  that  event 
and  the  date  of  its  occurrence.  Now  although  this  story, 
also,  in  its  present  form,  represents  the  Flood  as  having 
destroyed  all  mankind  except  the  occupants  of  Ut- 
napishtim's  vessel,  there  are  indications  that  the  original 
catastrophe  was  the  destruction  of  a  city  called  Shurippak 
on  the  lower  Euphrates.  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
a  local  inundation  was  the  common  foundation  of  the 
three  accounts.  It  must  have  occurred  long  before  2348 
n.  c,  the  date  of  the  Flood  according  to  the  Priestly 
narrator,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  hero  of  the 
event  is  one,  the  last,  of  the  ten  kings  of  the  prehistoric 
period.*  This  means  that  neither  of  the  three  accounts 
can  be  regarded  as  strictly  historical.  It  does  not,  how- 
ever, mean  that  they  are  all  alike  valueless.  When  they 
are  compared  as  vehicles  of  moral  and  religious  instruc- 
tion, the  superiority  of  the  Hebrew  accounts  is  at  once 
apparent.  The  Babylonian  story  is  polytheistic,  and  its 
gods  are  as  capricious,  jealous,  and  quarrelsome  as  those 
of  the  other  ancient  pantheons.  Its  hero  is  the  favorite 
of  one  of  these  divinities.  The  Hebrew  tradition,  on  the 
other  hand,  even  in  its  oldest  known  form,  is  thoroughly 
monotheistic,  and  its  God  is  a  being  whose  character 
commands  instant  and  unmixed  reverence.  Its  hero  is 
the  man  who  alone  won  the  favor  of  his  God  by  his 
righteousness.  The  latter  story  would  naturally  have  an 
effect  upon  those  among  whom  it  circulated  as  salutary 
as  that  of  the  other  must  have  been  unwholesome,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  spite  of  its  unhistorical 

*  According  to  Jastrow  {RBA,  501  f.,  506)  the  Babylonian  story 
combines  with  the  tradition  of  the  destruction  of  Shurippak  remi- 
niscences of  the  destructive  rains  that  flooded  Babylonia  annually 
before  the  completion  of  the  system  of  canals  for  which  the  country 
was  famous.     Comp.  Efic.  Bib.,  art.  Deluge,  22. 


IX.- 1 8,  19]  COMMENTS  227 

features,  it  has  been  the  means,  under  God,  of  deterring 
many  from  sin  and  confirming  them  in  reverence  for, 
and  obedience  to,  their  Maker. 

The  history  of  the  patriarch  closes  with  a  passage, 
mostly  from  the  Yahwistic  narrative,  which  may  be  en- 
titled 

b.  Noah's  Prophecy  (ix.  18-29). 

18.  Thus  far  the  Yah  wist  has  given  no  hint  of  the 
number  of  persons  in  Noah's  family.  See  vii.  i,  23. 
He  now  mentions  three  sons,  giving  them  the  same 
names  as  the  Priestly  narrator  in  v.  32,  vi.  10,  and  vii.  13. 
In  the  present  text  there  follows  an  explanation.  Ham 
■was  the  father  of  Kena'an.  The  reason  for  its  inser- 
tion is  evident.  It  was  intended  to  prepare  the  reader 
for  the  story  from  another  source,  beginning  with  v.  20, 
in  which  Kena'an  is  the  prominent  figure.  That  story, 
in  V.  22,  contains  another  reference  to  the  relation  be- 
tween Ham  and  Kena'an  even  more  noticeable  than  the 
one  found  here.  The  gratuitousness  of  the  latter  arouses 
the  suspicion  that  neither  of  them  is  original,  that  they 
were  both  inserted  by  a  compiler  for  the  purpose  of 
harmonizing  vv.  20  ff.  with  their  present  context ;  a  sus- 
picion strengthened  by  the  fact  that  even  now  the  har- 
mony is  not  complete,  since,  while  in  this  verse,  as  in  the 
Priestly  narrative  (v.  32  ;  vi.  10;  vii.  13  ;  x.  6  ff.).  Ham 
is  the  second,  in  v.  24,  if  he  is  the  offender,  he  is  ex- 
pressly called  the  youngest  son  of  Noah.  The  difficulty 
is  explained,  and  with  it  the  interpolations  in  question,  by 
vv.  25  ff.,  whence  it  appears  that,  according  to  the  author 
of  the  story,  the  patriarch's  three  sons  were  not  Shem, 
Ham,  and  Yepheth,  but  Shem,  Yepheth,  and  Kena'an.* 

19.  From  these  as  progenitors,  all  the  rest  of  man- 
*  On  the  bearing  of  x.  21,  see  the  comment  on  that  passage. 


228         THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [IX.  19-22 

kind  having  been  destroyed  by  the  Flood,  the  whole 
earth,  or,  more  exactly,  the  new  population  of  the  globe, 
spread  themselves  abroad.* 

20.  Tlic  last  two  verses  seem  to  have  been  the  intro- 
duction to  the  Yahwistic  (J-)  table  of  the  nations,  frag- 
ments of  which  are  preserved  in  chapter  x.  There  now 
follows  them  an  extract  from  the  same  source  (J^)  as  iv. 
17  ff.  It  recounts  the  experience  of  Noah  the  hus- 
bandman as  the  planter  of  the  first  vineyard. f 

21.  In  due  time  he  gathered  his  grapes  and  made  them 
into  wine.  Of  this  he  drank,  not  knowing  what  would 
be  the  effect ;  whereupon  he  became  drunk  and,  while 
in  this  condition,  exposed  himself  where  he  lay  within 
his  tent. 

22.  Here,  according  to  the  received  text,  Ham  found 
him.  Originally  however,  as  has  .been  shown,  it  must 
have  been  Kena'an  who  saw  the  nakedness  of  his 
father  and,  instead  of  making  haste  to  hide  the  patriarch's 
shame,  as  he  should  have  done,  told  his  brethren,  Shem 
and  Yepheth,  apparently  with  indecent  mirth  or  malice, 
what  he   had  witnessed.  J     Comp.   Holzinger.     All  this 

*  On  n^QD,  see  Ges.  §  67,  R  11;  comp.  Siegfried-Stade,  art. 

t  The  text,  literally  rendered,  reads,  Noah  the  husha7idinan  began 
and  planted  a  vineyard.  Ball  inserts  nVrtS  to  be,  after  113  in 
imitation  of  x.  8.  But  this  makes  the  author  say,  contrary  to  iii. 
20,  that  Noah  was  the  first  husbandman,  instead  of  what  the  con- 
text requires,  that  he  was  the  first  vintner.  A  happier  suggestion 
is  that  of  Budde  {BU^  312),  that  the  original  readinii:  was  n3  TT^I 
'y\  n3  brr*"!  n^lS  tr**S'  and  Noah  became  a  husbandman,  and 
Noah  began,  etc.,  and  that  the  text  was  changed  to  suit  the  new 
context,  when  the  story  was  given  its  present  place  after  that  of 
tiie  Flood.     On  the  construction,  see  (ies.  §  120,  2,  a. 

X  'I'hc  Greek  Version  has  he  went  forth  and  told,  and  Ball  adopts 
this  reading ;  but  his  claim  that  V")n>  without,  implies  a  preced- 
ing S!!'*1  is  not  supported  by  usage,  the  example  he  cites  (xxxix.  12) 


IX.  22-25]  COMMENTS  229 

implies  that  the  three  sons  of  Noah  were  all  young  ; 
which  they  cannot  have  been  according  to  the  author  of 
cither  of  the  accounts  of  the  Flood.  This  difficulty 
could  be  avoided  by  inserting  the  incident  here  narrated 
before  the  Flood  ;  but  then  it  would  be  impossible  to  ex- 
plain the  preservation  of  such  a  person  as  Kena'an. 
These  considerations  make  it  necessary  to  conclude  that 
the  work  to  which  this  story  "belonged  did  not  contain 
an  account  of  the  Flood. 

23.  The  two  older  brothers,  with  a  filial  reverence 
worthy  of  all  praise,  took  a  cloak,  one  of  the  ample 
outer  garments  often  used  by  orientals  as  a  covering  at 
night  (Ex.  xxii.  25/26  f.),  and  covered  their  father, 
their  faces  meanwhile  being  modestly  turned  back- 
ward. 

24.  The  close  connection  between  this  and  the  follow- 
ing verses  requires  that  his  youngest  son  should  be 
interpreted  as  referring  to  Kena'an.     Comp.  Dillmann. 

25.  This  being  admitted,  there  is  not  the  least  diffi- 
culty in  understanding  the  otherwise  unjustifiable  male- 
diction, Cursed  be  Kena'an,  which  Noah  uttered  when 
he  learned  what  had  happened.  He  cursed  Kena'an,  not 
because  Kena'an  was  the  youngest,  and  therefore  pre- 
sumably the  dearest,  son  of  Ham  (Delitzsch),  but  because 
Kena'an  himself  was  the  offender.  His  fate  is  to  be  the 
lowest  of  servants,  lit.  the  servant  of  servants  *  to  his 
brethren ;  via.^  as  the  following  verses  show,  the  other 
sons  of  Noah,  Shem  and  Yepheth.  The  reference  to 
the  subjugation  of  the  Promised  Land  is  unmistakable. 
Kena'an  must,  therefore,  be  interpreted,  not  in  the 
broader  sense  of  x.  15  ff.,  but  like  Kena'anite  in  xxiv.  3, 

not  presenting  a  parallel  case.  On  the  other  hand,  see  Cant, 
viii.  r. 

*  On  this  idiom,  see  Cant.  i.  i  ;  Ges.  §  133,  3,  R  2. 


230         THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [IX.  26,  27 

etc.,   as  including  merely  the  primitive  inhabitants  of 
Palestine.* 

26.  Having  cursed  Kena'an,  the  patriarch  takes  occa- 
sion to  pronounce  a  corresponding  blessing  upon  each  of 
his  other  sons,  beginning  with  the  elder.  Blessed  of 
Yahweh,  he  says,  be  Shem.f  The  use  of  the  divine 
name  dearest  to  the  Hebrews  in  this  connection  indicates 
that  Shem  is  here  only  another  name  for  Israel,  and  this 
idea  is  confirmed  when  one  considers  the  relation  that  he 
is  henceforth  to  sustain  to  Kena'an.  He  is  to  be  a  mas- 
ter and  Kena'an  is  to  be  a  servant  to  him4  This  was 
the  precise  relation  between  the  Hebrews  and  the  original 
occupants  of  the  most  of  Palestine  after  the  Conquest. 
See  Jos.  xvii.  13  ;  Jud.  i.  28,  30,  33  ;  etc. 

27.  The  second  son  receives  the  benediction,  May 
God,  not  Yahweh  the  Holy  one  of  Israel,  enlarge 
Yepheth.§  The  significance  of  these  words  is  disputed. 
It  has  usually  been  taken  for  granted  that  the  Yepheth 

*  The  etymology  of  the  name  "J^r^'  K'na^an,  is  doubtful.  See 
Enc.  Bib.,  art.  Canaa?i.  Whatever  its  derivation,  the  author  of 
this  story  doubtless  connected  it  with  V3D'  be  humble,  and  saw  in 
it,  as  in  Cwi7'  Shem  {Renown),  a  presage  of  the  destiny  of  the  people 
who  bore  it. 

f  The  received  text  \\7is  Blessed  be  Yahweh  the  God  of  Shem; 
but  this  leaves  Shem  without  a  blessing  and  makes  Kena'an  the 
servant  of  Yahweh.  These  difficulties  are  removed  by  adopting 
Budde's  suggestion  {BU,  294  ff.),  that  '^nbW'  God  of,  be  omitted 
and  Yahweh  made  the  genitive,  instead  of  the  predicate,  after 
blessed.     See  xxvi.  29. 

X  On  "rab»  see  Isa.  xliv.  15 ;  Ges.  §  103,  2,  n. 

§  The  verb  r\^\  yapht,  furnishes  an  excellent  example  of  paro- 
nomasia, which,  however,  cannot  be  rendered  into  English  without 
taking  undue  liberty  with  the  thought  of  the  author.  It  is  gener- 
ally regarded  as  at  the  same  time  an  etymology  of  Yepheth.  Budde 
{BU,  358  ff,),  however,  derives  the  name  from  HDN  be  beautiful^ 
citing  nbl»  etc.,  as  similar  formations. 


IX.  27]  COMMENTS  231 

here  meant  is  the  Yepheth  of  x.  2,  and,  on  the  basis  of 
this  assumption,  believed  that  the  prayer  of  the  patriarch 
was  answered  in  the  participation  of  some  of  the  peoples 
which,  according  to  x.  2  ff.,  sprang  from  Yepheth,  in  the 
power  and  glory  of  the  ancient  Shemitic  empires  (Dill- 
mann),  or  the  admission  of  the  entire  family  through  the 
Gospel  to  the  spiritual  benefits  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
(Delitzsch).  If,  however,  as  has  been  shown,  there  is  no 
connection  between  this  passage  and  either  source  of 
chapter  x.,  and  the  names  Shcm  and  Kena'an  must  both 
be  interpreted  in  a  narrower  sense  here  than  there,  it  is 
fair  to  conclude  that  the  Yepheth  who  is  to  dwell  in  the 
tents  of  Shem,*  while  Kena'an  is  to  be  a  servant  to 
him  also,  represents  a  people  in  or  near  Palestine.  Well- 
hausen  (67/,  14  f.)  thinks  it  can  only  be  the  Philistines  ; 
but,  as  Budde  {BU,  331  ff.)  has  shown,  the  Hebrews 
always  regarded  the  Philistines  as  aliens,  and  the  rela- 
tions between  the  two  peoples  were  from  the  first  almost 
continuously  unfriendly.  See  Jud.  xiv.  3  f . ;  i  Sam.  ix. 
16;  xviii.  25  ;  2  Sam.  v.  17  ff. ;  Isa.  ix.  12;  etc.  Thus 
there  was  never  a  time  when  the  expansion  of  Philistia 
could  have  been  regarded  as  a  thing  to  be  desired  by 
a  loyal  Hebrew.  Compare  the  case  of  the  Phoeni- 
cians. They,  like  the  Hebrews,  spoke  "  the  language  of 
Kena'an."  The  two  peoples,  although  in  some  places 
they  overlapped  (Jud.  i.  31  f.),  seem  never  to  have  had 
any  serious  misunderstanding.  When  the  monarchy  was 
established,  the  relations  between  them  became  of  the 
most  cordial  and  profitable  character  (2  Sam.  v.  1 1  ; 
I  Kgs.  V.  I  ff.) ;  and  the  friendship  continued  for  cen- 
turies, being  sealed  by  royal  intermarriages  (i  Kgs.  xi.  i  ; 

*  The  view,  dictated  by  Jewish  prejudice,  that  the  subject  of 
yZi'W^  is  God,  is  now  generally  abandoned.  See,  however,  Briggs, 
Ml\  82  f. 


232  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [IX.  27 

xvi.  31  ;  2  Kgs.  viii.  18).  Meanwhile  the  Phoenicians, 
having,  like  the  Hebrews,  conquered  from  earlier  pos- 
sessors the  territory  that  they  occupied,  must  have  held 
the  native  population  in  a  more  or  less  humiliating  bond- 
ao-e.  In  i  Kgs.  ix.  11,  Solomon  is  said  to  have  trans- 
ferred twenty  cities  of  Galilee  to  the  king  of  Tyre.  Add 
to  these  considerations  that  the  Phoenicians  were  the 
only  neighbors  whose  expansion  would  not  injure  the 
Hebrews,  and  the  conclusion  seems  irresistible,  that  they 
were  the  people  for  whom  the  blessing  here  recorded 
was  intended.*  The  teaching  of  this  story,  therefore, 
from  the  genealogical  standpoint,  is  that  Noah  was  the 
father,  not  of  the  new  race  that  peopled  the  earth  after 
the  Flood,  but  of  the  three  related  peoples  whose  history 
is  the  history  of  Palestine.!  The  deeper  lessons  are 
that  like  produces  like  in  the  moral  as  in  the  physical 

*  Budde  {BU,  361  ff.)  draws  a  further  argument  for  the  above 
view  from  the  fitness  of  Yepheth,  in  the  sense  he  gives  to  it,  to 
represent  the  country  and  people  whose  capital  was  Tyre,  a  city 
famed  for  its  beauty.  See  Eze.  xxvii.  3  f. ;  etc.  He  also  (343  ff.) 
answers  objections,  the  chief  of  which  is  based  on  the  apparent  use 
of  the  term  Kena'anite  as  a  distinctive  designation  of  the  Phoeni- 
cians, especially  in  Num.  xiii.  29;  xiv.  25;  Jos.  v.  i ;  xiii.  4;  Jud. 
iii.  3;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  7;  Isa.  xxiii.  11 ;  Oba.  20.  In  none  of  these 
passages  is  Kena'an  or  Kena'anite  the  proper  and  peculiar  name 
of  Fhcenicia  or  the  Phoenicians,  but  of  the  country  —  sometimes, 
it  is  true,  inclusive  of  Phoenicia  —  west  of  the  Jordan  or  its  inhabi- 
tants. When  the  Phoenicians  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
rest,  they  are  called  Sidonians.  See  Deu.  iii.  9;  Jos.  xiii.  4,  6; 
Jud.  iii.  3;  X.  II  f. ;  xviii.  7;  i  Kgs.  v.  20/6;  xi.  i,  5,  33;  xvi.  31 ; 
2  Kgs.  xxiii.  13.     See  further  McCurdy,  HPM,  i.  159  f. 

t  In  T/.  28  ff.  Noah  is  made  the  son  of  Lemekh  ;  but  this  can 
hardly  have  been  the  idea  of  the  original  Yahwist.  Perhaps,  as 
lUiddc  {BU,  405  ff.)  suggests,  in  parts  of  his  work  omitted  by  the 
compiler  he  may  have  connected  the  patriarch  with  the  Lemekh  of 
iv.  18  ff.  through  Yabhal  the  first  shepherd. 


IX.  28,  29]  COMMENTS  233 

realm,  and  that  God  rewards  the  good  and  punishes  the 
evil  for  their  doings. 

28.  The  paragraph  in  its  present  form  closes  with  a 
statement  concerning  the  length  of  the  life  of  the  hero 
of  the  Flood  from  the  Priestly  narrative.  He  lived  after 
the  Flood,  which  began  in  his  six  hundredth  year  (vii. 
II)  and  lasted  nearly  two  months  beyond  the  end  of  it 
(viii.  13),  three  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

29.  Thus  the  patriarch  attained  the  enormous  age  of 
nine  hundred  and  fifty  years,  an  age,  according  to  the 
received  text,  exceeded  only  by  Yeredh  (962)  and  Me- 
thushelah  (969) ;  but,  according  to  the  more  reliable  read- 
ing of  the  Samaritans,  equaled  by  none  of  his  predeces- 


The  incident  just  discussed  serves  a  twofold  purpose, 
furnishing  an  impressive  conclusion  to  the  history  of 
Noah  and  arousing  an  interest  in  that  of  his  sons.  The 
narrative  next  gives  an  account  of  the  distribution  of 
their  descendants,  in  other  words  of 

4.    The  Origin  of  the  Peoples  (x.-xi.). 

The  larger  part  of  these  two  chapters  is  devoted  to  a 
general  survey  of 

a.   The  Race  and  its  Divisions  (x.  1-xi.  9). 

On  this  subject  there  seem  to  have  been  two  different 
views.  The  first  was  that  the  various  peoples,  each  with 
its  peculiar  features,  language,  customs,  etc.,  had  their 
origin  in 

(i)  A  Gradual  Dispersion  (x.)  along  genealogical 
lines.  This  view  was  shared  by  the  Priestly  narrator  with 
the  second  Yahwist,  both  of  whom  prepared  tables  show- 

*  For  "^rr^l  (sing.)  read,  with  the  Samaritans,  Vn"^T  (plur.). 


234  THE  WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [X.  i,  2 

ing  the  relation  of  the  peoples  within  their  horizon  to 
one  another.  From  these  tables  the  one  preserved  in 
this  chapter  was  compiled. 

1.  It  begins  with  a  title,  Now  these  are  the  genera- 
tions, etc.,  from  the  Priestly  narrative.  The  beginning 
of  the  Yahwistic  table,  as  has  already  been  explained,  is 
found  in  Lx.  18  f.,  where  it  serves  as  an  introduction  to 
Noah's  prophecy.  Perhaps  the  last  half  of  this  verse, 
and  there  were  born  to  them  sons  after  the  Flood, 
is  from  the  same  source.  The  Priestly  narrator  does  not 
elsewhere  attach  statements  of  the  sort  here  found  to  his 
titles.     See  v.  i  ;  vi.  9 ;  etc.  :  comp.  Dillmann. 

The  sons  of  Noah  are  taken  in  the  reverse  order,  and 
the  peoples  that  sprang  from  each  of  them  enumerated. 
First,  therefore,  come 

(a)  TJlc  Families  of  Yepheth  {vv.  2-5).  2.  His  first- 
born was  Gomer,  who  represents  the  Kimmerians  (Ass. 
Gi^nirri),  an  Aryan  tribe  who  once  had  their  home  in 
southern  Russia,  giving  name,  as  is  supposed  (Meyer), 
GAy  i.  §  452),  to  the  Crimea.  They  first  appeared  in  Asia 
early  in  the  seventh  century  b.  c,  but  whether  they  came 
by  way  of  Thrace  across  the  Bosphorus  (Meyer),  or 
through  the  mountains  east  of  the  Black  Sea  (Sayce),  is 
disputed.  The  fact  that  they  came  into  contact  with  the 
Assyrians  some  years  before  their  attack  upon  the  king- 
dom of  Lydia  seems  to  favor  the  latter  opinion.*  They 
were  finally  driven  back  eastward  ;  where  they  lost  them- 
selves among  the  Aryan  hordes  by  whom  the  Assyrian 
empire  was  overthrown  ;  but  not  until  they  had  become  so 

•  Esarhaddon  (Schrader,  KB,  ii.  128  f.)  claims  to  have  defeated 
them,  apparently  in  the  region  of  Cilicia.  When  they  assailed 
Lydia,  he  had  been  succeeded  by  Asshurbanipal  (Schrader,  A'/?,  ii. 
172  ff.).  See  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §§  453  ff. ;  Rogers,  HBA,  ii.  239  f., 
256  f. ;  Ragozin,  Assyria,  337,  378  f. 


X.  2]  COMMENTS  235 

closely  associated  with  Cappadocia  that  the  ancient  Arme- 
nians, at  least,  called  it  Gamir.  See  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  486  ; 
Die.  Bib.  art.  Gomcr.  In  Eze.  xxxviii.  Gomer  furnishes  a 
contingent  for  the  final  invasion  of  Palestine.  But,  since 
Gogh,  the  leader  in  this  disastrous  expedition,  is  evidently 
a  reminiscence  of  the  Scythian  invasion  (Meyer,  GA,  i. 
§§  463  f.  ;  Ragozin,  Assyria^  423  ff.),  it  is  probable  that 
Maghogh,  the  second  son  of  Yepheth,  represents  the 
Scythians,  or,  as  the  Persians  called  them,  the  Saka, 
who  left  their  name  in  a  region  at  the  foot  of  the  Cau- 
casus, the  Sacasene  of  the  ancient  geographers.*  The 
Assyrians  and  Babylonians  seem  to  have  included  them 
with  the  Kimmerians  under  the  general  term  Ma7idaj 
nomads.  See  Schrader,  KB,  ii.  128  f . ;  iii.  2,  98  f.  The 
same  term  sometimes  included  the  Medes,  who  were 
properly  called  Mada,  the  equivalent  of  the  name  here 
given  to  the  third  son  of  Yepheth,  Madhay.  The  As- 
syrians first  came  into  contact  with  them  toward  the 
end  of  the  ninth  century  b.  c,  when  they  occupied  the 
region  about  the  southern  end  of  the  Caspian  Sea.  See 
Schrader,  KB,  i.  142  f.,  190  f.  ;  Rogers,  HBA,  ii.  Sy. 
They  were  then  without  a  general  government.  In 
process  of  time  they  became  a  united  nation,  powerful 

*  The  name  Gogh  is  by  some  (Meyer)  identified  with  that  of  the 
Lydian  king  Gyges  (Ass.  Gugu),  but,  in  view  of  the  facts  in  the 
case,  there  is  more  reason  for  supposing  it  the  equivalent  of  Gagu^ 
which  occurs  in  an  inscription  of  Asshurbanipal  as  the  name  of  the 
king  of  Sahi,  a  country  to  the  north  of  Assyria.  See  Frd.  De- 
litzsch,  WLP,  246  f. ;  Ragozin,  Assyria,  422.  The  name  Maghogh 
occurs  also  Eze.  xxxviii.  2  and  xxxix.  6;  but  in  the  latter  passage, 
as  appears  from  the  Greek  Version  (B),  it  is  a  mistake  for  Gogh, 
and  in  the  former,  according  to  Meyer  {GA,  i.  §  464,  n.),  an  interpo- 
lation. Holzinger  sue^gests  that  here,  also,  the  original  reading  may 
have  been  Goi^h,  and  that  the  error  was  occasioned  by  the  proxim- 
ity of  Madhay. 


236  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM         [X.  2 

enough,  first  to  throw  off  the  Assyrian  yoke,  and  then, 
with  the  aid  of  the  Babylonians,  to  overthrow  the  empire. 
See  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §§  481  f.  ;  Ragozin,  Assyria,  419  if. ; 
comp.  Rogers,  HBA,  ii.  287  ff.  It  should  also  be  re- 
membered in  this  connection,  that,  after  the  conquest  of 
Media  by  Cyrus,  the  Hebrews,  like  the  Greeks,  often 
called  all  the  subjects  of  the  empire  Medes.  See  Isa. 
xiii.  17;  Jer.  li.  11  ;  etc.  Yawan  (Ass.  Yama7iu),  prop- 
erly the  lonians  of  the  southwestern  coast  of  Asia  Minor 
and  the  islands  adjacent,  is  here,  as  elsewhere  in  tlie 
Old  Testament  (Zch.  ix.  13;  Dan.  viii.  21;  etc.),  the 
Greeks  in  general.  As  in  Eze.  xxvii.  13,  where  they 
receive  earliest  mention,  so  here,  they  are  associated 
with  Tubhal  *  and  Moshekh.  f  Tubhal  (Ass.  Tabalu) 
is  supposed  to  denote  the  Tibarenians,  a  people  who, 
when  they  first  appear  in  history  (c.  850  b.  c),  occupy 
the  country  adjoining  Cilicia  on  the  north  (Schrader, 
KB,  i.  142  f.,  ii.  56  f.) ;  and  Moshekh  (Ass.  Miishkti),  the 
Moschians,  whose  territory  adjoined  that  of  the  Tiba- 
renians on  the  northeast.  See  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  245  ; 
Rogers,  HE  A,  ii.  22  f.  They  generally  appear  together, 
not  only  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions. In  Eze.  xxxviii.  i  ff.  they,  like  Gomer,  are 
arrayed  under  the  leadership  of  Gogh  ;  which  is  only 
another  way  of  saying  what  is  here  taught,  that  all  these 
peoples  were  in  some  way  related  to  one  another.  In 
the  Persian  period  the  Moschians  and  the  Tibarenians 
occupied  parts  of  the  mountainous  region  along  the  south- 
eastern shore  of  the  Black  Sea.     See  Frd.  Delitzsch, 

♦  The  received  text  has  b^n*  without  1>  but  many  manuscripts 
have  the  full  form,  binn>  as  do  the  Samaritans. 

t  The  text  has  *7lCtt»  Meshck/i,  but  the  Samaritan  reading  is 
"fC?''^  Jind  this  is  supported  by  the  Moo-ox,  Afosoch,  of  the  Greek 
Version. 


X.  2,  3]  COMMENTS  237 

WLPy  250 f.  The  only  theory  with  reference  to  Tiras 
that  deserves  mention  is  the  one  according  to  which  it 
means  the  Tyrsenians,  a  primitive  seafaring  people,  pro- 
bably the  Turushu  of  the  Egyptian  monuments  (Meyer, 
GA,  i.  §§  260,  263  ;  Rawlinson,  AE,  258,  275  ff.),  who 
had  their  home  on  the  shores  and  islands  of  the  yEgean 
Sea ;  and  this  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  satisfactory.* 

3.  The  author  follows  the  process  of  dispersion  still 
farther,  but  only  in  two  lines.  Gomer  is  represented  as 
the  father  of  three  tribes  or  peoples.  Their  identity  is 
more  or  less  uncertain.  Jer.  li.  27,  however,  seems  to 
furnish  a  clue  to  that  of  the  first,  'Ashkenaz.  Since, 
in  this  passage,  'Ararat  is  Armenia  and  Minni  the  coun- 
try of  the  Mannai  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  to  the 
southeast  of  it  {Die.  Bib.,  art.  Mi?t?ii),  it  is  safe  to  seek 
'Ashkenaz  in  the  same  region.  The  conditions  seem  to 
be  met  by  Ashguza,  whose  king  supported  the  Man- 
naeans  in  a  revolt  against  Esarhaddon.  See  Schrader, 
KAT,  610;  KBy  ii.  128  f.,  146 f.  ;  comp.  Dillmann.  If, 
however,  'Ashkenaz  was  northeast  of  Assyria,  it  is  not 
probable  that  Riphath  f  was  either  in  eastern  (Josephus) 
or  western  (Bochart)  Bithynia.  The  safer  supposition  is, 
that  it  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  Togharmah,  which 
Ezekiel  (xxxviii.  6)  locates  in  the  remote  north  and  tra- 
dition identifies  with  Armenia.  J 

*  According  to  Jub.  ix.  11  the  portion  of  Tiras  was  "four  great 
islands  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  which  approach  the  portion  of 
Ham." 

t  For  Riphath,  1  Chr.  i.  6,  evidently  through  an  error  of  a  copy- 
ist, has  Diphath. 

X  The  name  by  which  the  Armenians  call  their  progenitor  is 
Thorgom,  the  Thergama,  or  Thorgama,  of  the  Greek  Version. 
The  latter  is  generally  accounted  an  error  of  the  translators,  but 
an  examination  of  the  proper  names  of  the  region  to  which  the 
people  in  question  is  supposed  to  have  belonged  will  show  that 


238  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [X.  4 

4.  The  only  other  branch  of  the  stock  of  Yepheth 
that  receives  further  attention  is  that  of  Yawan.  His 
firstborn  is  'Elishah.*  The  older  authorities  are  divided 
with  reference  to  this  name ;  some  making  it  the  equiva- 
lent of  .'Eolia  (Josephus)  and  others  of  Hellas  (Targum), 
while  still  others  interpreted  it  as  representing  the  Greeks 
of  Sicily  and  Lower  Italy  (Targ.  to  Ezekiel).  It  has  also 
been  identified  with  Elis  (Bochart),  Carthage,  the  founda- 
tion of  Elissa  (Movers),  and  finally  with  Alashia  (Conder), 
one  of  whose  kings  wrote  several  of  the  Tell  el-Amarna 
letters  (Schrader,  KB,  v.  i,  80  ff.;  Ball,  LE,  Z'j  f.).  The 
likeness  in  the  last  case  is  strikingly  close,  but  this  theory, 
whether  Alashia  be  located  in  northern  Syria  (Maspero) 
or  Cyprus  (Winckler)f  requires  a  reexamination  of  the 
prevalent  opinion  respecting  one  of  the  next  two  sons  of 
Yawan.  If  it  was  in  Syria,  there  is  still  something  to  be 
said  for  the  idea  (Josephus)  that  Tarshish  here  means 
Tarsus  or  Cilicia ;  while,  if  it  was  Cyprus,  a  new  location 
must  be  found  for  the  Kittites.  The  former  of  these 
suppositions  is  rendered  improbable  by  the  apparent  fa- 
miliarity of  the  Hebrews  of  the  sixth  century  b.  c.  with 
the  real  location  of  Tarshish.  See  Jer.  x.  9 ;  Eze.  xxvii. 
12.  The  latter  seems  to  be  forbidden  by  evidence  that 
KittiteSy  if  it  was  sometimes  used  in  a  larger  sense  than 

there  is  something  to  be  said  for  a  contrary  opinion.  See  Tarhuna 
and  Tarhanabi,  names  of  mountains  near  Lake  Van  (Schrader, 
KB,  i.  30  f.) ;  Tarzanabi  {KB,  i.  142  f.)  and  Bit-taranza(A"^,  ii.  6  f.), 
l)laces  in  or  near  Media;  and  Tarsihu  {KB,  i.  i82f.),  Tarhular 
KB,  ii.  18  f.),  and  Tarhunazi  {KB,  ii.  62  f.),  kings  of  Nairi,  Gam- 
gum,  and  Miliddu;  etc. 

*  The  Samaritan  reading  is  tt7'*bS'  ^Elish. 

t  Maspero's  view  is  favored  by  the  jealousy  of  the  Hittites  dis- 
liiayed  by  a  king  of  Alashia  in  a  letter  to  Amcn-hotep  III.  (Schrader, 
KB,  V.  I.  82  f) ;  Wincklcr's  by  the  fact  tliat  the  presents  sent  by  the 
former  to  the  latter  consisted  largely  of  copper  {KB,  v-  i.  i)0  ff.). 


X.  4,  5]  COMMENTS  239 

Cyprus,  always  included  that  island.  See  Isa.  xxiii.  i,  12 ; 
also  Num.  xxiv.  24.  These  objections  to  the  identifica- 
tion of  'Elishah  with  Alashia  permit  a  return  to  one  of 
the  older  theories.  The  only  hint  of  the  identity  of  the 
country  or  people  in  question,  outside  its  name,  is  found 
in  Eze.  xxvii.  7,  where  the  "isles  "  or  "coasts  "  of  'Elishah 
are  the  source  of  the  purple  stuff  from  which  the  Tyrians 
made  awnings  for  their  ships.  This  has  been  supposed 
to  point  to  Greece,  or  some  part  of  it ;  but,  since  Ta- 
rentum  was  as  famous  in  its  time  for  the  production  of 
the  purple  dye  from  the  nmrcx  brafidaris  as  Laconia,  it 
is  as  safe  to  say  that  the  prophet  had  in  mind  the  Greek 
colonies  of  Italy  and  Sicily  as  that  he  was  thinking  of  the 
mother  country.  In  explanation  of  the  appearance  of 
Tarshish  and  Cyprus  as  sons  of  Yawan  it  should  be  added 
that,  although  both  were  originally  occupied  by  the  Phoe- 
nicians (Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  191),  in  the  sixth  century  b.  c. 
the  Greeks  had  a  flourishing  settlement  at  Tartessos 
(Meyer,  GA,  ii.  §  429),  and  long  before  that  they  had 
gained  almost  complete  possession  of  the  island  of  Cy- 
prus (Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  277).  Rhodes  had  a  similar  his- 
tory. Hence  the  Rodhanites  *  also  are  numbered 
among  the  sons  of  Yawan.  The  plural  form  of  the  last 
two  names  indicates  in  what  sense  the  term  sojis  is  to  be 
understood  in  this  table. f 

5.  The  line  of  Yawan  is  not  followed  beyond  the  first 
generation  ;  but  the  author  adds  the  general  statement, 
that  from  these  already  named  the  coasts  of  the  na- 
tions, the  southern  coast  of  Europe  and  the  islands  of 

*  This  is  the  reading  in  i  Chr.  i.  7  as  well  as  the  Greek  and 
Samaritan  codices.  Tlie  Massoretic  text  has  2*^31%  Dodhanites, 
by  a  copyist's  error. 

t  It  is  possible,  also,  that  it  should  be  interpreted  as  indicating 
difference  of  authorship.     See  v.  13. 


240  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [X.  5, 6 

the  Mediterranean,  or  the  peoples  occupying  them,  dis- 
persed themselves  as  branches.  This  is  undoubtedly 
the  original  meaning  of  the  words,  but,  in  the  present 
text,  by  the  omission  of  a  clause  corresponding  to  that 
by  which  the  conclusion  of  a  paragraph  is  introduced  in 
vv,  20  and  31,  they  are  made  to  refer  to  the  whole  family 
of  Yepheth.  The  words  to  be  supplied  in  this  connec- 
tion are  These  were  the  sons  of  Yepheth.*  There- 
upon follow  naturally  the  four  technical  phrases  in  which 
the  author  presents  the  thought  of  separation  from  as 
many  different  points  of  view.  Thus  the  peoples  are  re- 
presented as  segregated  in  space  in  their  lands.  Each 
also  had  its  distinctive  tongue.  The  implication  is  that 
the  various  languages  spoken  by  the  branches  of  the 
family  were  the  result  of  their  separation.  There  cer- 
tainly is  no  indication  that  the  author  thought  the  oppo- 
site to  have  been  the  case.  Comp.  xi.  i  ff.  After  their 
families  suggests  the  intimate  relation  among  the  indi- 
viduals of  which  each  family  was  composed  (viii.  19),  and 
in  their  nations  the  solidarity  of  their  interests  as  a 
division  of  mankind.f 

(b)  T/ic  Families  of  Ham  {vv.  6-20).  6.  Ham's  first- 
born was  Kush.  This  name  doubtless  has  more  than 
one  meaning,  even  in  the  present  chapter.  See  v.  8.  In 
most  cases,  however,  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment it  plainly  refers  to  the  region,  east  of  the  Nile 
above  the  first  cataract,  called  by  the  Greek  geographers 

*  This  seems  a  better  explanation  than  that  of  Holzinger,  who 
thinks  that  "13t27bb  tC"^M  betrays  the  hand  of  a  reviser,  and  suggests 
that  the  one  who  substituted  this  expression  for  Cn3tt?bb  also  sub- 
stituted the  clause  with  which  the  verse  now  begins  for  the  one  that 
is  needed  to  give  the  remaining  words  their  proper  significance. 

t  (Jn  the  form  and  order  of  these  expressions,  compare  vv.  20 
and  31. 


X.  6]  COMMENTS  241 

Ethiopia.  See  2  Kgs.  xix.  9 ;  Eze.  xxix,  10 ;  etc.  It  is 
therefore  <?  priori  probable  that  the  same  name  has  the 
same  sense  in  this  connection  ;  a  supposition  that  is  con- 
firmed by  the  following  considerations :  (/)  That  since 
the  evident  object  of  the  author  is  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  the  peoples  within  his  horizon,  and  the  Ethiopi- 
ans must  have  been  one  of  them,  he  could  hardly  have 
omitted  them  ;  and  {2)  that  the  name  is  here  immediately 
followed  by  Misrayim,  which  always  elsewhere  means 
Egypt  or  the  Egyptians,  and  occurs  in  this  sense  scores 
of  times  in  other  extracts  from  the  work  (P)  to  which 
the  passage  in  hand  belonged.*  The  third  branch  of  the 
Hamites  is  called  Put.  This  name  generally  (four  times 
out  of  five)  appears  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
connection  with  Kush.  The  Greek  and  Latin  versions 
render  it  Libya  or  Libyans,^  and  this  is  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  it  by  the  other  ancient,  and  many  modern 
authorities,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that,  in  Nah.  iii,  9,$  the 
Libyans  are  a  distinct  people.  If,  as  Ebers  {ABM,  63  ff.) 
and  others  contend,  Put  is  the  Punt  of  the  Egyptian 
monuments,  which  in  one  instance  is  located  east  of 
Egypt  {ABM,  65,  n.  i,  107),  it  was  probably  in  Arabia. 
See  Ebers,  ABM,  71  ;  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  178,  n.  Glaser 
{SGA,  ii.  333  ff.),  although  he  rejects  the  theory  that 
Put  and  Punt  are  the  same,  agrees  with  Meyer  in  locat- 
ing the  former,  with  Pliny's  Foda  and  the  modern  el- 

*  This  statement  of  reasons  is  rendered  necessary  by  the  dis- 
covery of  both  a  Kush  and  a  Musr  in  northern  Arabia,  and  an 
attempt  by  Cheyne  and  others  to  identify  them  with  the  Kush 
and  Misrayim  of  this  passage.  See  Winckkr,  MVG,  1898;  Enc. 
Bib.,  art.  Ciish. 

fin  Isa.  Ixvi.  19,  where  the  original  should  doubtless  have  t^lD 
instead  of  biC,  Ptil,  the  Greek  Version  has  Phoud  and  the  Latin 
Africa. 

X  In  this  instance  Put  is  wanting  in  the  Greek  Version. 


242  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [X.  6,  7 

Faidh,  on  the  west  coast  of  Arabia.  This  is  the  direction 
in  which  one  would  naturally  look  for  it,  since  the  next 
name  is  Kena'an,  here,  as  in  ix.  25,  Palestine  and  its 
ori'^inal  population.  Observe,  however,  that  in  this  table 
the  Kena'anites  are  not  represented  as  the  brethren  of 
the  Hebrews. 

7.  Kush  had  five  sons.  The  first  of  these  is  Sebha. 
This  name  is  found  only  three  times  elsewhere  in  the  Old 
Testament :  in  Isa.  xliii.  3  associated  with  those  of  Kush 
and  Misrayim,  and  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  10  with  that  of  Shebha. 
In  Isa.  xlv.  14  the  Sabeans  are  described,  like  the  Kush- 
ites  in  xviii.  2  and  7,  as  of  large  stature.  These  indica- 
tions point  to  a  people  closely  related  to  the  Kushites, 
whose  country  lay  between  Kush  and  Shebha.  Hence 
Scbha  has  been  identified  with  Saba,  according  to  Strabo 
(xvi.  4,  8,  10)  the  name  of  a  harbor  on  the  west  coast  of 
the  Red  Sea,  near  the  site  of  the  modern  city  of  Mas- 
saua  ;  or  Sabae,  that  of  a  city  farther  northward.  Comp. 
Glaser,  SGA,  ii.  387  ff.  The  Hawilah  of  ii.  1 1  was  in 
northern  Arabia,  and,  although  it  would  be  unsafe  to  take 
for  granted  that  the  Priestly  author  located  his  in  the 
same  region,  the  fact  that  the  remaining  sons  of  Kush 
must  be  sought  in  Arabia  favors  the  opinion  that  the  two 
are  one.  So  Glaser  {SGA,  ii.  323  ff.),  who  locates  Hawi- 
lah in  "the  district  of  Yemamaand  el-Kasim,  toward  the 
north  end  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  i.  e.,  strictly  speaking,  cen- 
tral and  northeast  Arabia."  Comp.  Delitzsch.  Sabhtah 
is  perhaps  Sabata,  the  ancient  capital  of  Hadramaut,  in 
southern  Arabia.  Comp.  Glaser,  SGAy  ii.  387.  Ra'mah, 
which  occurs  in  P3ze.  xxvii.  22  in  connection  with  Shebha, 
is  probably  the  place  of  the  same  name  in  southwestern 
Arabia,  of  which  mention  is  made  in  Sabean  inscriptions 
(Ualevy),  rather  than  the  Rhcgma  located  by  Ptolemy 
(vi.  7,  14)  on  the  Persian  Gulf.     Comp.  Glaser,  SO  Ay 


X.  7,  8]  COMMENTS  243 

ii.  387.  Sabhtekha  must  also  have  been  in  southern 
Arabia,  perhaps,  as  Glaser  (SGA,  ii.  404)  suggests,  as 
far  cast  as  Oman,  but  it  has  not  thus  far  been  satisfac- 
torily identified.  The  only  branch  of  the  family  of  Kush 
carried  to  the  third  generation  is  that  of  Ra'mah,  to  wliom 
are  given  two  sons.  The  first  bears  a  name,  Shebha, 
familiar  to  readers  of  the  Old  Testament  as  that  of  the 
country  whose  queen  visited  Solomon  (i  Kgs.  x.  i  ff.),  and 
whose  principal  products  were  gold  and  incense  (i  Kgs.  x. 
2,  10 ;  Eze.  xxvii.  22,  etc.)  It  is  the  country  of  the  Sa- 
beans,  whose  capital  was  Marib,  in  southwestern  Arabia. 
In  the  eighth  century  b.  c.  when  this  people  paid  tribute 
to  Tiglath-pilescr  III.  (Schradcr,  KB,  ii.  54  f .  ;  KAT, 
145  f.),  they  seem  to  have  extended  their  territory,  or 
their  settlements,  to  the  northern  end  of  the  peninsula. 
They  played  a  leading  part  in  the  history  of  Arabia  until 
about  300  B.  c.  See  Die.  Bib.,  art.  Arabia.  In  v.  28 
Shebha  is  a  son  of  Yoktan,  while  in  xxv.  3  both  Shebha 
and  Dedhan  are  grandsons  of  Abraham.  The  name  of 
this  second  son  of  Ra'mah  is  also  familiar  as  that  of  a 
part  of  Arabia.  According  to  Eze.  xxv.  13  it  extended 
northward  as  far  as  the  border  of  *Edhom.  Glaser  (SGA, 
ii.  395  ff.)  locates  it  north  of  Medina.  The  name  is  pre- 
served in  that  of  Daidan,  a  ruined  city  west  of  Teima, 
the  Tema  with  which  Dedhan  is  associated  in  Isa.  xxi. 
14  and  Jer.  xxv.  23.  See  Bic.  Bib.,  art.  Arabia  and 
Dcdan. 

8.  The  next  thing  should  now  be  a  list  of  the  sons  of 
Sabhtekha  or  one  of  the  remaining  sons  of  Kush,  or,  if 
the  author  could  not,  or  would  not,  go  farther  with  the 
descendants  of  Ham,  a  conclusion  like  that  in  v.  5.  What 
actually  follows  is  a  statement  that,  in  addition  to  the  five 
sons  already  mentioned  in  v.  6,  Kush  begot  Nimrodh; 
a  statement  whose  phraseology  at  once  betrays  its  Yah- 


244  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM  [X.  8 

wistic  origin.*  If,  however,  it  is  Yahwistic,  the  question 
arises,  whether  the  name  Kush  here  has  the  same  mean- 
ino-  that  it  had  in  v.  7.  The  context  suppHes  the  answer. 
From  V.  10  it  is  plain  that  the  author  has  in  mind,  not 
r:thiopia,  but,  as  in  ii.  13,  Babylonia,  and  that  therefore 
the  apparent  relation  between  Nimrodh  and  the  Kushites 
of  V.  7  is  an  editorial  creation. f  The  idea  seems  to  be, 
til  at  the  primitive  inhabitants  of  Babylonia  were  Kas- 
sliitcs.  From  them  sprang  Nimrodh,  the  first  to  be- 
come a  potentate,  exercising  over  those  he  ruled  the 
authority  of  force,  the  first  conqueror,  in  the  earth. 
Nimrodh  has  been  identified  with  Gilgamesh,  the  hero  of 
the  great  epic  of  the  Babylonians.  He  was  a  Kasshite 
(J astro w,  RBA,  480),  and  a  mighty  conqueror  (Schrader, 
KB,  vi.  I,  118  f.  ;  Jastrow,  RE  A,  473  f.).  Moreover  he 
was  a  native  of  Marad,  whose  name  bears  a  striking  re- 
semblance to  Nimrodh  (Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  220).  The 
prominence  given  to  Babylon  in  v.  10,  however,  favors  the 
view  that  he  is  none  other  than  the  patron  deity  of  that 
city,  and  that  his  name  is  but  a  corruption  of  Marduk  or 
Amaruduk  (Wellhausen,  CH,  309  f. ;  Die.  Bib.,  art.  Nim- 

*  The  verb  here  used,  "lV»  is  in  the  first  (^al)  stem,  as  in  iv.  18  ; 
and  not  in  the  third  {Hiphil)  as  in  v.  3,  etc.  The  Samaritans,  how- 
ever, have  the  latter. 

t  This  does  not  mean  that  there  was  no  relation  between  the 
Kassliites  of  Babylonia  and  the  Ethiopians,  There  is  a  growing 
conviction  among  scholars  that  the  two  peoples,  widely  as  they 
finally  became  separated,  belonged  to  the  same  stock  ;  that,  in  fact, 
the  latter  were  emigrants  from  the  region  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  See 
Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  53  ff.;  Glaser,  SGA,  ii.326ff. ;  Petrie,  HE, 
i.  1 2  ff.  The  question  for  the  present,  however,  is  not.  What  are  the 
facts  in  the  case?  but.  What  wa?  the  author's  belief  and  teaching 
with  reference  to  it  ?  Now  it  seems  clear  that,  if  this  verse  is  by  the 
same  author  as  vv.  26-30,  where  the  tribes  of  Arabia  are  all  derived 
from  thf  Shemite  Yoktan,  he  can  hardly  have  identified  his  Kush 
with  the  fatlier  of  the  Ethiopians.     Comp.  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  Cush,  2. 


X.  8-10]  COMMENTS  245 

rod) ;  to  whom  the  foundation  of  Uruk  as  well  as  Baby- 
lon seems  to  have  been  attributed.  See  Schrader,  KB^ 
vi.  38  ff.  In  either  case  the  author  will  have  reduced  a 
mythical  character  to  credible  proportions.  Comp.  Ball, 
LEy  44  f. 

9.  The  development  of  the  latter  half  of  v.  8  is  inter- 
rupted by  the  introduction  of  a  further  description  of 
Nimrodh  as  mighty  in  hunting,  like  many  of  the  As- 
syrian kings  (Ragozin,  Assyria^  413  f.).  The  phrase  be- 
fore Yah"weh,  like  to  God  in  Jon.  iii.  3  and  Acts  vii.  20, 
apparently  denotes  the  highest  degree  of  the  quality  in 
question.  Comp.  Keil.  His  prowess  became  proverbial, 
so  that,  even  in  the  author's  day,  the  Hebrews  —  he 
would  hardly  have  put  the  name  Yahweh  into  the  mouth 
of  a  gentile  —  in  praise  of  a  successful  hunter  said,  Like 
Nimrodh  mighty  in  hunting  before  Yahweh. 

10.  After  this  digression,  probably  not  a  part  of  the 
original  story,  the  narrative  proceeds  with  an  outline  of 
Nimrodh's  dominions.  The  beginning,  nucleus,  of  his 
kingdom  consisted  of  four  cities,  and,  naturally,  the  ter- 
ritory belonging  to  them.  These  cities  he  had  not  built, 
but  acquired  in  some  other  way,  before  he  attempted 
to  extend  his  sway  over  Mesopotamia.  The  first  and 
most  important  was  Babhel,  Babylon,  on  the  Euphrates, 
a  city  of  uncertain  antiquity,*  which  rose  into  prominence 
in  the  reign  of  Hammurabi  (2287-2232  b.  c.f)  and  held 

*  In  the  second  story  of  creation  (Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  40  f. ;  Ball, 
LE^  19)  it  is  one  of  the  two  cities,  Eridu  being  the  other,  whose 
creation  at  the  beginning  is  expressly  ascribed  to  Marduk.  Na- 
bonidus  (555-53<S  b.  c.)  in  one  of  his  inscriptions  (Schrader,  A'^,  iii. 
2,  84  f.)  calls  Sargon  I.  (c.  3750  R.  c.)  king  of  Babylon,  and  in  one  of 
the  so-called  omens  of  the  latter  (Schrader,  KB^  iii.  i,  102  f.)  he 
seems  to  be  described  as  the  founder  of  the  city. 

t  These  are  the  dates  given  by  Frd.  Delitzsch  (GBA,  Appendix). 
Comp.  Hommcl,  AilT,  118  ff. ;  also  Rogers,  HBA^  i.  338. 


246  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [X.  lo 

its  position  in  Babylonia  until  the  death  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  or  nearly  twenty  centuries.  The  second  city  was 
'Orekh,*  Ass.  Uniky  which  was  situated  on  the  Euphrates 
below  Babhel,  at  a  site  now  called  Warka.  It  was  at  least 
as  old  as  Babylon,  appearing  as  an  important  religious  cen- 
tre in  the  earliest  records  of  southern  Babylonia. f  'Ak- 
kadh,  a  familiar  name  for  northern  Babylonia,  is  here  a 
city,  probably  the  one  that  was  either  built  or  rebuilt  by 
Sargon  I.  for  his  residence  (Schrader,  KB,  iii.  i,  102  f. ;  Ball, 
LE,  5 1  f.).  Frd.  Delitzsch  (  WLP,  209  ff.)  identifies  this 
Akkad  or  Agade  %  with  the  southern  half  of  the  twin  city 
of  Sippar,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Euphrates  above  Ba- 
bhel ;  the  half  sometimes  designated  as  Sippar  of  Annuni- 
tum  (Ishtar).  See  also  McCurdy,  HPM,\.  107  f.  This 
hypothesis,  however,  has  not  met  with  universal  favor ; 
and  the  same  is  the  case  with  his  identification  ( WLP^ 
225  ff.)  of  Kalneh  with  Kulunu,  a  place  mentioned  by 
Sargon  II.  among  his  conquests.  See  Schrader,  KAT, 
95  f.  :  Enc.  Bib.y  arts.  Accad  and  Calnch.  Wherever 
Kalneh  was,  it  was  probably  not  the  place  mentioned 
under  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  name  in  Am.  vi.  2  § 

*  This,  instead  of  'Erekh,  is  the  form  required  by  the  vocaliza- 
tion of  the  Assyrian  name  as  well  as  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Ver- 
sion. 

t  It  also  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  oldest  cities  in  the  world  in 
the  second  story  of  creation  (Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  38  f. ;  Ball,  LE^ 
19).  Gilgamesh  made  it  his  capital  (Schrader,  KB,  vi.  i,  118  f.). 
A  temple  to  Ishtar  was  built  there  by  Ur-gur,  king  of  Ur,  c.  2800 
B.  c.  (Schrader,  KB,  iii.  i,  78  f.).  See  also  McCurdy,  HPM,  i. 
119  f. ;   Rogers,  NBA,  i.  291  f. 

X  The  identity  of 'Akkadh  and  the  city  whose  name  is  usually 
written  A-ga-de,  discovered  by  George  Smith  {AD,  225),  appears 
from  an  inscription  of  Nebuchrezzar  I.  (Schrader,  KB,  iii.  i,  170  f.) 
where  Ishtar  is  called  bilii  (a/u)  Ak-ka-di,  patroness  of  the  city  of 
Akkadu.     Comp.  Tiele,  BAG,  76. 

§  The  note  on  this  passage  in  the  author's  Afnos  should  be  cor- 
rected. 


X.  10,  ii]  COMMENTS  247 

and  Isa.  x.  9  ;  since  the  latter  seems  to  have  been  in  north- 
ern Syria,  while  the  former  was  in  the  land  of  Shin'ar. 
In  xiv.  I  this  name,  which  some  of  the  best  authorities 
identify  with  the  Shumer  of  the  inscriptions,*  appears  to 
mean  only  Babylon  and  the  country  immediately  about 
it.  Here,  however,  as  in  xi.  i,  Isa.  xi.  11,  etc.,  it  un- 
doubtedly includes  the  whole  of  Ikibylonia  ;  for  'Akkadh 
was  at  the  northern,  and  'Orekh  almost  at  the  southern, 
end  of  that  region,  f 

II.  The  kingdom  of  Nimrodh  extended  beyond  Baby- 
lonia. From  that  land  he  "went  forth  northward, 
along  the  Tigris,  to  'Asshur,  Assyria  ;  which  in  Mic.  v.  6 
is  called  the  land  of  Nimrodh.  This  statement  is  in 
essential  agreement  with  the  best  knowledge  obtainable 
with  reference  to  the  origin  of  Assyria  ;  whose  language, 
customs,  religion,  in  fact  its  civilization  as  a  whole,  evi- 
dently came  from  Babylonia.  See  McCurdy,  HPM,  i. 
209  f.  The  date  at  which  migration  northward  began  is 
uncertain.  The  first  capital  was  Asshur,  the  city  from 
which  the  new  state  took  its  name,  on  the  western  bank 
of  the  Tigris,  midway  between  the  upper  and  the  lower 
Zab.  Its  history  can  be  traced  as  far  back  as  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century  b.  c,  when  Ishmi-dagan  was 
its  ruler.  See  Schrader,  KB,  iii.  i,42f. ;  Rogers,  HBA, 
ii.  2  f.  This  city  the  author  ignores,  probably  because, 
in  his  time,  it  had  lost  its  more  ancient  importance.     His 

*  So  Frd.  Delitzsch  {IVLP,  19S  f.),  who  supposes  the  one  to  have 
come  from  the  other  through  an  intermediate  form  Shunger.  See 
also  Schrader,  KA  7",  1 18  f. ;  Budde,  BU,  385.  Compare,  however, 
Meyer,  GA,  i.  129  n. 

t  It  is  taken  for  "granted  that  the  phrase  in  question  is  intended 
to  define  the  location  of  all  the  cities  named,  and  not  merely  Kalneh, 
although  it  is  admitted  that  the  latter  is  a  possible  interpretation. 
See  McCurdy,  HPM,  i.  132  n. 


248         THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [X.  ii,  12 

information  is  to  the  effect  that  the  first  city  of  Assyria 
built  by  Nimrodh  was  Nineweh  (Ass.  Nina  or  Niniia)^ 
which  was  situated  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris  opposite, 
the  site  of  the  modern  city  of  Mosul.  It  also  was  a  city 
in  the  nineteenth  century  b.  c,  but  it  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  the  capital  for  any  length  of  time  before  Sen- 
nacherib (705-681)  rebuilt  and  fortified  it.  Thencefor- 
ward it  remained  the  royal  residence  until  the  overthrow 
of  the  empire.  See  Schrader,  KA  T,  96  ff.*  The  second 
city  built  by  Nimrod,  Rehobhoth-'ir  {Aventies-of-tJie-city), 
has  not  been  certainly  located,  but  Frd.  Delitzsch  ( IVLP, 
260 f.)  identifies  it  with  Rebit-ir,  a  suburb  north  and 
northeast  of  Nineweh,  mentioned  by  Sargon  II.  (Schrader, 
KB,  ii.  46  f.)  and  Esarhaddon  (KB,  ii.  126  f.) ;  which,  of 
course,  must  have  arisen  some  time  after  the  city  proper. 
Comp.  Schrader,  A"^  7",  100  f.  K.alah  (Ass.  Ka//m)  was 
a  much  younger  city  than  Nineweh,  having  been  founded 
by  Shalmaneser  I.  c.  1300  b.  c.  Its  site  is  now  covered 
by  a  mound  called  Nimrud,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris, 
in  the  angle  between  that  river  and  the  Upper  Zab,  about 
twenty  miles  south  of  Nineweh.  It  was  rebuilt  by  As- 
shurnasirpal  (884-860),  who  made  it  his  capital.  It  re- 
mained the  favorite  residence  of  the  Assyrian  kings  until 
Sargon  II.  took  possession  of  the  new  town,  Dur-shar- 
ruken,  which  he  had  built  for  the  seat  of  his  government 
(Schrader,  KB,  ii.  46  ff.). 

12.  Finally  Nimrodh  built  Resen.  Its  original  name 
was  probably  Reshenu  ;  but  it  is  not  probable  that  it  was 
the  place  of  that  name  connected  with  the  canal  built  by 
Sennacherib  (Schrader,  KB,  ii.  116  f.),  for  that  was  north 

*  McCurdy{HPAf,  i.  210  f.),  interpreting  the  Nina  of  the  inscrip- 
tions of  Gudea  (Schrader,  /CB,  iii.  i,  26  ff.)  as  meaning  the  pa- 
troness of  Nineweh,  instead  of  Laj^ash,  carries  the  history  of  the 
former  back  to  c.  3000  u.  c.     Comp.  Jastrow,  RBA,  86  ff. 


X.  12,  13]  COMMENTS  249 

or  east  of  Nineweh  (Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  187  f.),  while 
the  city  founded  by  Nimrodh  was  between  Nineweh 
and  Kalah,  pciiiaps  where  the  village  of  Selamieh  ikjw 
stands  (Menant).  In  the  phrase  just  quoted  Resen, 
Nineweh,  and  Kalah  are  treated  as  distinct  cities.  The 
next  statement  unites  them,  with  Rehobhoth-'ir,  into  a 
complex  described  as  the  great  city.  This  is  the  Nine- 
weh of  Jon.  iii.  2  f.,  "three  days'  journey"  in  extent. 
Hence  the  clause  is  probably  a  later  addition  to  the  story 
of  Nimrodh,  the  date  of  which,  in  its  present  form,  can 
hardly  be  earlier  than  700  b.  c* 

1 3.  The  story  of  Nimrodh  being  finished,  the  genealogy 
proper  is  continued,  not,  however,  in  the  style  of  the 
Priestly  narrator.  The  remaining  names  in  the  line  of 
Ham  are  of  Yahwistic  origin.  They  are  all  introduced 
by  the  term  begot,  as  if  they  represented  individuals  ; 
but  this  is  not  the  case,  as  appears  most  clearly  in  this 

*  The  prevalent  view  is  that  vv.  8,  10-12  entire  should  be  re- 
ferred to  the  second  Yahwist,  and  therefore  to  a  date  not  much,  if 
any,  earlier  than  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century  B.  c.  Dill- 
man,  however,  dissented  from  this  opinion,  and  there  are  signs  of 
a  disposition  to  reconsider  the  question  of  their  authorship.  Thus, 
Holzinger  in  his  Genesis  expresses  himself  as  doubtful  whether  the 
passage  should  l)e  referred  to  J^  or  J^  (xxv.),  admitting  that  Nim- 
rodh the  individual  does  not  harmonize  with  the  rest  of  tlie  former's 
table  (loi).  He  might  have  added  that,  on  the  other  hand,  v.  8 
strongly  recalls  the  style  and  purpose  of  the  first  Yahwist.  See  iv. 
20  ff. ;  vi.  4  ;  ix.  20  ;  xi.  6.  To  meet  the  objection  based  on  the  dis- 
crepancy between  this  story  and  xi.  I  £f.,  Dillmann  simply  transposes 
them.  The  treatment  of  the  last  clause  of  v.  \^  as  editorial  removes 
a  historical  difficulty ;  for,  although  Nineweh  did  not  eclipse  the  other 
cities  mentioned  until  the  time  of  Sennacherib,  it  had  more  than 
once  been  the  temporary  capital  of  the  empire.  Asshurnasirpal 
(8<S4-86o  B.  c),  e.  g.,  resided  there  until  he  restored  Kalah.  See 
Schrader,  KB,  i.  50  ff.  ;  Rogers,  HBA,  ii.  46  ff. 


250  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [X.  13 

verse  and  the  next,  where  the  names  are  all  plural* 
Moreover,  some  of  them  are  familiar  as  the  names  of  well 
known  peoples.  This  is  not  the  case  with  that  of  the 
first-begotten  of  Misrayim,  Ludhites.  It  at  once  sug- 
gests the  Lydians  (Knobel),  but  the  fact  that  it,  or  the 
corresponding  singular,  is  almost  always  (four  times  out 
of  five)  elsewhere  associated  with  Put,t  and  twice  with 
Rush  also,  supports  the  natural  inference  from  the  pre- 
sent connection,  that  the, author  had  in  mind  a  people  in 
or  near  Egypt,  and  native  to  that  region.  The  theory  of 
Ebers  {ABM,  96  ff.),  therefore,  that  the  Ludhites  are  the 
Rutu  or  Lutu,  i.  e.,  the  Egyptians  proper  as  distinguished 
from  the  types  mingled  with  them,  is  to  be  preferred.^ 
The  Rutu  appear  first  on  a  list  of  types  in  Egypt  under 
the  nineteenth  dynasty  {ABM,  93).  Second  on  the  same 
list  are  the  Aamu,  a  Semitic  tribe  who  pastured  their 
herds  along  the  eastern  border  of  the  country.  These 
wandering  herdsmen,  also  called  An  (Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  43), 
Ebers  {ABM,  98  ff.)  identifies  with  the  'Anamites.§ 
The  Lehabhites  are  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  the 
Lubhites  of  Nah.  iii.  9,  i.  e.,  the  Libyans  {Eg.Rehu  ox Lcbic), 
whose  country  bounded  Lower  Egypt  on  the  west.  Being 
employed  as  mercenaries  by  the  Egyptians,  they  finally 
became  the  ruling  class.     Sheshonk  and  other  kings  men- 

*  The  fiction  in  the  term  begot  required  that  the  names  should 
be  used  without  the  article,  but  with  riS,  the  sign  of  the  definite 
accusative.     Comp.  vv.  16-18. 

t  In  Isa.  Ixvi.  19,  for  b"lD>  Pul,  read,  with  the  Greek  version, 
1:1?:  Put. 

X  Stade  (/y,  5  ff.)  reads  D'^D'lbj  Libyans,  here  and  in  Jer.  xlvi.  9, 
while  Toy  {SBOT)  substitutes  the  singular  of  the  same  name  for 
T^b  in  Eze.  xxvii.  10  and  xxx.  5,  and  Cheyne  {SBOT)  omits  all  the 
names  from  Isa.  Ixvi.  19. 

§  He  explains  the  Hebrew  C^^i^^  as  compounded  of  the  two 
Eg>'ptian  words  an,  nomad,  and  amii,  herdsman. 


X.  13,  14]  COMMENTS  251 

tioned  in  the  Old  Testament  were  of  Libyan  origin.  See 
Meyer,  GA,  i.  §3i7f. ;  Die.  Bib.,  art.  Lubivi.  On  the 
hst  of  types  already  twice  cited  they  appear  under  the 
name  Temhu.  See  Ebers,  ABM,  93.  The  Naphtu- 
hites,  according  to  Ebers  {ABM,  Ii2ff.),  are  those  of 
BtaJi  {tia-PtaJi),  i.  e.,  the  inhabitants  of  Memphis  and  the 
surrounding  country,  whose  patron  deity  was  Ptah  ;  but 
Erman  {ZAW,  1890,  1 18  f.)  derives  the  name  from  Pe- 
temhi,  an  Egyptian  designation  for  the  Delta  :  *'  and  there 
is  not  much  choice  between  the  two  opinions. 

14.  The  Pathrusites  are  the  people  of  Pathros  or 
Upper  Egypt  (Eg.  Petres\\^\\os,c  political  and  religious 
centre  was  Thebes.  See  Jer.'xliv.  i.f  The  name  Kaslu- 
het  is  said  {Die,  Bib.,  art.  CapJUoi)  to  occur  in  an  in- 
scription in  the  temple  of  Kom  Ombo,  in  Upper  Egypt, 
as  that  of  a  country  conquered  by  Ptolemy  XIII.  ;  but 
there  is  no  indication  where  it  was  situated.  It  is  there- 
fore of  no  assistance  in  locating  the  Kasluhites,  whom 
Ebers  {ABM,  120  ff.)  and  others  suppose  to  have  occu- 
pied the  coast  between  the  Delta  and  Philistia.  From 
the  Kasluhites,  according  to  the  present  text,  -went  forth 
the  Pelishtites,  i,  e.,  the  Philistines.  In  Am.  Lx.  7,  how- 
ever, the  Philistines  are  said  to  have  come  from  Kaph- 
tor.  The  relative  clause  is  therefore  probably  a  gloss  that 
should  have  been  inserted  after  Kaphtorites.f  With- 
out it  this  name  probably  meant  here,  as  in  Deu.  ii.  23, 
the  Philistines ;  who,  since  in  i  Sam.  xxx.  14,  Eze.  xxv. 

*  Erman  changes  the  text,  making  it  read  D'^n^snC'  PatJumt- 
hites. 

t  In  Eze.  xxix.  14  and  xxx.  14  Pathros  seems  to  be  a  synonym 
for  Egypt. 

\  Ball  and  others  transfer  it  to  this  position,  but  there  is  no 
probability  that  it  ever  had  any  other  place  in  the  text  than  it  now 
occupies.  If  they  wished  to  restore  it  to  its  original  position, 
they  should  have  removed  it  to  the  margin. 


252  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [X.  14-16 

16,  and  Zph.  ii.  5  they  are  called  Kerethites,  are  believed 
to  have  been  of  Cretan  origin.  See  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  Che- 
rcthitcs ;  comp.  art.  CapJUor. 

15.  In  Lx.  25  ff.  the  Kena'anite  and  the  Phoenician 
were  represented  as  brothers.  Here  Kena'an  is  the 
father  of  several  children,  Sidhon  —  not  the  ancient 
capital  and  its  inhabitants  alone,  but,  like  Sidoniaiis  in 
I  Kgs.  xi.  5  and  elsewhere,  the  Phoenicians  as  a  people 
—  being  his  first-born.  His  second  son  was  Heth,  the 
Heta  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Hatti  of  the  Assyrians, 
a  powerful  people  with  whom  both  of  these  great  nations 
waged  long  and  bloody  wars,  and  to  whom  Sargon  H. 
gave  the  decisive  blow  in  717  b.  c.  Their  original  seat  ap- 
pears to  have  been  in  Cappadocia,  but  they  early  pressed 
into  northern  Syria,  whence  they  continually  threatened 
Palestine.  According  to  Gen.  xxiii.  i  ff.,  there  were  Hit- 
tites  in  Hebron  as  early  as  Abraham's  time.  When  the 
Hebrews  returned  from  Egypt,  there  were  still  remnants 
of  them  in  various  places  (Num.  xiii.  29),  and  they  did 
not  entirely  disappear  after  the  Conquest.  See  2  Sam. 
xi.  3  ff. ;  etc.  It  is  these  southern  Hittites,  as  a  part  of 
the  population  of  Palestine,  who,  to  judge  from  v.  19,  are 
meant  in  this  passage.  See  further  McCurdy,  HPM, 
i.  i9off.  ;  Ball,  LE,  95  ff. 

16.  The  list  of  Kena'an's  family,  in  its  present  form, 
gives  him  eleven  sons ;  but  the  names  yet  to  be  noticed 
are  later  additions  to  the  original  table,  as  is  shown  (/)  by 
their  form,  — they  are  all  gentilic  nouns  in  the  singular, 
with  the  article,  —  and  {2)  by  the  fact  that  some  of  them 
represent  communities  outside  the  limits  of  the  territory 
allotted  to  the  Kcna'anites  in  v.  19.  The  first  of  these 
added  names  is  the  Yebhusite,  a  collective  designation 
for  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and  its  vicinity. 
See  Num.  xiii.  29;  Jud.  i.   21.    The 'Emorite,  like  the 


X.  1 6,  17]  COMMENTS  253 

Keiia^anitey  sometimes  means  the  original  inhabitants  of 
Palestine  as  a  whole  (xv.  16 ;  etc.),  but  here,  as  in  xiv.  7, 
c.  g.y  it  appears  to  denote  a  tribe  in  the  southern  part 
of  the  country.  See  further  McCurdy,  HPM,  i.  159  f. 
The  Girgashite,  according  to  Jos.  xxiv.  11,  lived  west  of 
the  Jordan  ;  but  the  tribe  bearing  the  name  cannot  be 
more  definitely  located.  Comp.  Die.  Bib.,2irt.  Girgasliite. 
1 7.  The  Hi-wwite  is  a  name  given  to  the  inhabitants 
of  certain  cities  —  Shekem,  Gibeon,  etc. — in  Central 
Palestine.  See  xxxiv.  2;  Jos.  ix.  7,  17.*  The  four 
names  thus  far  examined  are  familiar,  at  least  three  of 
them  being  found  in  all  the  editorial  lists  of  the  tribes 
of  Palestine  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.! Those  that  follow  are  found  only  here  and  in 
the  corresponding  passage  in  Chronicles  (i  Chr.  i.  15  f.). 
The  'Arkite  represents  the  inhabitants  of  'Arka,  the 
ruins  of  which  are  found  about  twelve  miles  north  of 
Tripolis.     It  was  a  very  ancient  city,  being  mentioned  in 

*  The  only  passages  in  conflict  with  this  statement  are  Gen. 
xxxvi.  2,  Jos.  xi.  3,  Jud.  iii.  3.  In  the  first  ^^'nT\i  the  Hiwivite,  is 
evidently  an  error  for  the  "^nnH'  the  Horite^  of  v.  20.  In  Jos.  xi. 
3  the  correct  reading  is  doubtless  that  of  the  Greek  Version  (AB), 
in  which  the  Hiwwtte,  as  elsewhere,  immediately  precedes  the 
Yebhusite^  and  it  is  the  Hittitev^ho  is  under  Hermon  ;  and  Jud.  iii. 
3  should  probably  be  made  to  agree  therewith.     See  Moore  /.  /. 

I  The  four,  with  the  addition  of  the  Hittite,  the  Kena^anite,  and 
the  Perizsite,  occur  Deu.  vii.  i  ;  Jos.  iii.  10;  xxiv.  11.  All  but 
the  Girgashite^  with  the  same  additions,  are  found  Ex.  iii.  8,  17; 
xxiii.  23;  xxxiii.  2;  xxxiv.  11  ;  Deu.  xx.  17;  Jos.  ix.  i  ;  xi.  3 ;  xii. 
8 ;  with  the  Hittite  and  the  Kena'anite,  Ex.  xiii.  5  ;  and  with  the 
Hittite  and  the  Perizzitc^  i  Kgs.  ix.  20;  2  Chr.  viii.  7.  All  but  the 
Hiwwite,  with  the  Hittite,  the  Ketia'-anite,  and  the  Perizzite,  ap- 
pear in  Neh.  ix.  8;  and  with  further  additions  in  Gen.  xv.  19  ff. 
The  Yehhusite  and  the  ' Emorite  are  found  in  a  peculiar  list  in  Ezr. 
ix.  I,  and  the  Hiwwite  in  another  in  Ex.  xxiii.  28.  For  the  order  in 
which  the  names  appear,  see  Driver,  Deu.  97. 


254  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [X.  17-19 

the  Tell  el-Amarna  letters  (Schrader,  KB,\.  i.  i/of.),  as 
well  as  in  the  annals  of  Tiglath-pileser  III.  {KB,  ii.  28  f.). 
Later  it  became  known  as  the  birthplace  of  Alexander 
Severus.  Sin,  the  Sianu  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions 
{KB,  ii.  26  f.),  whence  the  Sinite,  was  on  the  coast  not 
far  from  'Ark a. 

18.  The  'Arwadhite  is  the  inhabitant  of  'Arwadh,  a 
city  and  island,  now  Ruad,  just  off  the  coast  north  of 
Tripolis.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  annals  of  Thothmes  III. 
(c.  1475;  Petrie,  HEy  ii.  113),  and  frequently  by  the 
Assyrian  king  Asshurnasirpal  (884-860)  and  his  succes- 
sors. See  Schrader,  KAT,  104  f.  ;  etc.  Semar,  whence 
the  Semarite,  is  the  modern  Sumra.  It,  also,  was  a  very 
old  city,  just  north  of  'Arka.  See  Petrie,  HE,  ii.  114; 
Schrader,  KAT,  105  ;  KB,  v.  i,  98  ff.  et  pas.  Finally, 
the  Hamathite  represents  the  people  of  Hamath,  now 
Hama,  on  the  Orontes,  and  the  country  bounding  the 
Promised  Land  on  the  north  (Num.  xxxiv.  8),  of  which 
it  was  the  capital.  David  added  Hamath  to  his  domin- 
ions (2  Sam.  viii.  10),  and  Jeroboam  II.  recovered  it  for 
Israel  (2  Kgs.  xiv.  28).  The  Assyrians  conquered  and 
reconquered  it,  finally  reducing  it  to  lasting  submission 
about  720  B.  c.  See  Schrader,  KAT,  105  f.  The  final 
clause  of  this  verse  is  the  proper  conclusion  of  v.  15.  It 
informs  the  reader  that  afterward,  i.  e.,  after  the  birth 
of  Sidhon  and  Heth,  the  families  of  the  Kena'anite, 
which  the  original  author  did  not  attempt  to  enum.erate, 
spread  themselves  abroad  over  the  territory  to  be 
described. 

19.  The  western  border  of  this  territory  extended 
from  Sidhon  in  the  north,  along  the  Mediterranean, 
southward  as  far  as  *  Gerar,  a  city  the  ruins  of  which, 

♦  On  the  rendering  as  far  as  for  nDS3  and  H^S^  117,  see  xiii. 
10;  I  Sam.  xvii.  52;   i  Kgs.  xviii.  46;  etc. 


X.  19]  COMMENTS  255 

six  miles  southwest  of  Gaza,  now  bear  the  name  Kirbet 
el-Jcrar.  See  Thomson,  LB,  i.  196  ff.  The  place  is 
chictiy  interesting  for  its  associations  with  Abraham  and 
Isaac.  See  xx.  i  ff.  ;  xxvi.  17  ff.  The  phrase  unto 
'Azzah  (Gaza)  seems  to  be  an  explanatory  gloss,  added 
because  'Azzah  was  better  known  than  Gerar.  The  south- 
eastern corner  of  the  country  is  Sedhom  (Sodom)  famous 
as  the  principal  of  the  cities  destroyed  by  the  terrible 
visitation  described  in  chapter  xix.  Its  situation  is  dis- 
puted. Some  (Dillmann)  place  it  at,  or  in,  the  shallow 
southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  This,  however,  is  not  the 
view  that  finds  support  in  the  most  important  passages 
bearing  on  the  subject.  In  xix.  Sedhom  is  repeatedly 
{vv.  17,  25,  28,  29)  represented  as  located  in  the  Plain, 
lit.  Roimd.  But  this  Plaiiiy  according  to  xiii.,  was  tJic 
Plain  of  the  Yarden  (Jordan),  i.  e.,  the  oval  tract  on  the 
lower  course  of  the  river  at  the  head  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
seen  from  the  hills  near  Bethel  lying  between  them  and 
So'ar  {vv.  10  f.).  Compare  xix.  28,  by  the  same  author  (J), 
where  Abraham  looks  toward,  but  does  not  see,  the  site 
of  the  doomed  cities.  Still  more  definite  is  Deu.  xxxiv. 
3  (J),  where  the  Plain  is  described  as  the  Plaifi  of  Yer- 
cho  (Jericho).  If  the  author  of  xiv.,  like  the  Chronicler 
(2  Chr.  XX.  2),  identified  Hasason-tamar  with  'En-gedhi, 
he  also  {;uv.  7  ff.)  must  have  located  Sedhom  at  the 
head  of  the  Dead  Sea.  See  Thomson,  LB,  i.  371  ff . ; 
Tristram,  LI,  354  f.  ;  comp.  G.  A.  Smith,  HGHL,  505  f. 
This  is  probably  the  idea  in  the  present  passage,  the 
author  thinking  of  the  southern  border  as  running,  first 
to,  and  then  along,  the  sea,  to  the  north  end  of  it.  The 
mention  of  Sedhom  would  naturally  suggest  to  one  fa- 
miliar with  chapter  xiv.  or  Deu.  xxix.  23  'Amorah,  'Adh- 
mah,  and  Sebho3rim  ;  but,  since  one  place  was  better 
than  four  for  the  author's  purpose,  it  is  probable  that 


256  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [X.  19-21 

these  last  three  were  added  by  a  less  thoughtful  copy- 
ist.* The  remaining  name,  Lesha',  seems  to  correspond 
to  the  'Azzah  in  the  preceding  phrase,  but  it  is  not  so 
easily  explained,  since,  so  far  as  is  known,  there  was 
no  place  of  this  name  in  the  neighborhood  of  Sedhom. 
Perhaps,  as  Wellhausen  suggests  {CHy  15),  the  name  is 
a  corruption  of  that  of  Layish,  afterward  Dan  (Jud.  xviii. 
29),  the  place  that  marked  the  northeastern  corner  of  the 
country  of  the  Kena'anites.f  The  traditional  view,  that 
Lesha'  is  Callirrhoe,  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  is  certainly 
mistaken. J 

20.  The  paragraph  closes,  as  did  the  first  {^0.  5),  with 
a  formal  summary  of  its  contents.  Here,  however,  the 
order  is  not,  lands^  tongues,  families,  nations,  but,  as  in 
V.  31,  families,  tongues,  lands,  nations.  § 

The  collateral  branches  having  received  due  attention, 
lastly,  in  harmony  with  the  method  employed  through- 
out Genesis  (xxv.  i  ff.,  12  ff.,  19  ff.  ;  xxxvi.  i  ff. ;  xxxvii. 

2ff.), 

(c)  The  Families  of  Shem  {vv.  21-32),  constituting 
the  main  line,  are  introduced.  21.  The  opening  clause, 
children  were  born  to  Shem  also,  reminds  one  of 
iv.  26,  and  thus  betrays  its  Yahwistic  authorship.     The 

*  Ball  omits  them  all  as  secondary. 

t  For  "^wb  Wellhausen  proposes  to  read  Htrb  or  Ct^S  the 

accu.sative  of  tT'^V  Holzinger's  objection  that,  if  the  place  meant 
were  Layish,  the  name  would  be  preceded  by  H^SD  instead  of  1V» 
like  the  names  of  Gerar  and  Sedhom,  is  not  conclusive;  since,  in 
I   Sam.  xvii.  52,  both  particles  are  employed. 

X  The  Samaritans  read  this  whole  verse  differently,  substituting 
a  compilation  from  xv.  18  and  Deu.  xi.  24;  viz.,  And  the  border 
of  the  Kena'-anite  was  from  the  river  of  Mis  ray  im  to  the  great 
river,  the  river  Perath  [Kiiphratcs],  and  to  the  Western  Sea. 

%  For  CTT^ID^  the  Samaritans  read  Cn**"12b  here,  as  in  z/.  31. 


X.  21,  22]  COMMENTS  257 

patriarch  is  described  first  as  the  father,  the  progenitor, 
of  all  the  sons  of  'Ebher,  i.  r.,  the  Hebrews ;  the  object 
ui  the  uLithur  in  so  describing  him  being  to  remind  his 
readers  that  he  has  at  last  reached  the  part  of  the  table 
that  has  especial  interest  for  them.*  Comp.  Dclitzsch. 
At  the  same  time  he  recalls  the  fact  that  Shem,  though 
the  last  to  appear,  was  the  older  brother  of  Yepheth,f 
and  therefore,  as  in  ix.  18,  the  eldest  son  of  Noah. 

22.  This  interesting  verse  is  followed  by  a  brief  extract 
from  the  Priestly  table,  according  to  which  the  first  of 
Shem's  sons  was  'iBlani.  By  this  name  (Ass.  Elamtn) 
is  meant  the  people  of  the  highlands  about  the  head  of 
the  Persian  Gulf,  east  of  the  river  Tigris.  They  reached 
the  height  of  their  power  about  2300  b.  c,  when  they 
conquered  Babylonia  and,  according  to  chapter  xiv.,  ex- 
tended their  dominion  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  See 
Meyer,  GA,  i.  §§  135  ff.  ;  Rogers,  HBA,  i.  380  ff.  ;  Ra- 
gozin,  Chaldca,  219  ff.  Later  they  came  into  conflict 
with  the  Assyrians,  by  whom  they  were  finally  (645  b.  c), 
reduced  to  subjection.  See  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  459  ;  Rogers, 
HBA,  ii.  269  ff.  ;  Ragozin,  Assyria,  399  ff.  'Asshur, 
Shem's  second  son,  can  only  denote  the  Assyrians  ;  who, 
however,  according  to  v.  11,  were  of  Kushite,  i.  c,  Ham- 
ite  origin.  The  discrepancy  reminds  the  reader  that  he 
is  not  here  dealing  with  the  same  author  as  he  was  in 

*  Budde  {BU,  221)  suspects  that  ''33  bs^  all  the  sons  of,  is  a 
harmonistic  addition ;  but  since,  in  this  connection,  the  father  of 
'■Ebher  could  only  mean  what  is  meant  by  the  present  reading,  there 
seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  supposed  interpolation.  It 
is  more  probable  that  the  whole  of  the  descriptive  phrase  has  been 
inserted,  but  not,  as  Bacon  {GG,  117)  suggests,  from  an  earlier 
source. 

t  The  punctuation  of  the  original  indicates  that  the  Massoretes 
understood  this  phrase  as  the  Greek  translators  rendered  it:  viz.^ 
as  meaning  the  brother  of  Yepheth^  the  elder. 


25S  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM        [X.  22 

that  passage.  'Arpakhshadh  was  early  (Bochart)  iden- 
tified with  Arapachitis  (Ass.  Arbaha ;  Schrader,  KB,  il 
88  f.),  a  region  on  the  Upper  Zab,  northeast  of  Nineweh. 
To  this  view,  however,  there  are  serious  objections ;  viz.^ 
(/)  that  it  ignores  important  elements  in  the  name  ' Ar- 
pakJishadJi ;  and  {2)  that  it  excludes  the  most  important 
branch  of  the  stock  of  Shem.  The  latter  of  these  con- 
siderations has  led  many,  following  Josephus  (4/,  i.  6,  4), 
to  prefer  to  believe  that  'Arpakhshadh  is  only  another 
name  for  Babylonia  and  the  Babylonians.*  The  latest 
suggestion  (Cheyne),  arising  from  an  attempt  to  do  justice 
to  the  etymological  as  well  as  the  historical  side  of  the 
question,  is  that  'Arpakhshadh  combines  the  names  of 
two  of  the  sons  of  Shem,  ' Ai-pah,  Arrapachitis,  and  Ke- 
sJicdh,  Chaldea.  This  theory  requires  one  to  believe 
that  an  editor  (Rp),  having  mistaken  the  two  names  for 
one,  used  the  mistaken  designation  in  v.  24  and  substi- 
tuted it  for  Keshedh  in  xi.  10  ff. :  which  seems  improbable. 
See,  however,  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  ArpJiaxad ;  also  xxii.  22, 
where  Ke^edh  f  is  among  the  sons  of  Nahor,  the  brother 
of  Abraham.  In  ^.  13  the  Ludhites  were  tentatively 
identified  with  the  Rutu  of  Egypt,  as  the  context  seemed 
to  require.  The  context  here  forbids  one  to  suppose 
that  the  same  people  was  in  the  mind  of  the  author.  In 
fact,  Ludh  can  hardly  be  any  other  than  the  Lydians, 
who,  about  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century  b.  c,  had 
pushed  their  conquests  eastward  to  the  very  border  of 
the  Median  empire  (Meyer,  GA,  §§  486  f.  ;  Ragozin, 
Media,  217  ff.),  and  who  remained  one  of  the  great 
powers  of  the  period  until   546  b.  c,  when  they  were 

*  A  modification  of  this  view  makes  the  name  a  compound  from 
a  conjectural  PlIH  (Ar.  Utrfat),  boundary,  and  "Ttt,b  (Ass.  Kaldii), 
Chaldea.     See  Schrader,  KAT,  1 12  f. 

t  With  a  i:',  like  cnbD»  ChaUUans. 


X.  22,  23]  COMMENTS  ^so 

overthrown  by  Cyrus.  l-Mnally,  'Aram  is  the  Aramocans. 
According  to  Am.  ix.  7,  their  original  home  was  Kir, 
which  must  have  been  somewhere  in  the  direction  of 
Assyria.  See  Am.  i.  5.  In  xxii.  21  'Aram  is  the  grand- 
son of  Nahor,  of  Haran,  in  northwestern  Mesopotamia, 
a  region  which  the  Hebrews  called  'Aram-naharayim 
(Aram  of  tivo  rivers ;  xxiv.  10)  and  Paddan-'aram  (xxv. 
20),  and  where  the  Assyrians  found  the  Aramaeans 
(Aramu),  when  they  began  to  extend  their  borders  west- 
ward. See  Schrader,  KB,  i.  32  f.  By  'Aram,  however, 
the  Hebrews  usually  meant  what  they  sometimes  took 
pains  to  designate  as  'Aram-dammess^ekh  (2  Sam.  viii.  6), 
i.  e.,  the  country  of  which  Damascus  was  the  capital. 
They  also  distinguished  an  'Aram-beth-rehobh  near  Dan 
(2  Sam.  x.  6 ;  Jud.  xviii.  28),  an  *Aram-ma*akhah  farther 
westward  (i  Chr.  xix.  6;  2  Sam.  xx.  14),  and  an  'Aram- 
zobhah  between  Damascus  and  Hamath  (2  Sam.  x.  6). 
From  other  sources  the  Aramaeans  are  known  to  have 
spread  themselves  far  beyond  these  limits,  mingling  with 
other  races  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia  and  penetrating 
southward  into  the  Arabian  desert,  while  Aramaic  be- 
came the  international  language  of  Western  Asia.  See 
2  Kgs.  xviii.  26;  Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  257  f.;  Meyer, 
GA,  i.  §  401  ;  McCurdy,  HPM,  i.  84  f. ;  Enc.  Bib.,  art. 
Aram. 

23.  There  are  only  two  of  the  sons  of  Shem  in  whom 
the  Priestly  author  betrays  any  further  interest.  One  is 
'Arpakhshadh  ;  but  he,  being  in  the  line  through  which 
the  Hebrews  traced  their  descent,  is  neglected  for  the 
time  being,  to  be  given  his  place  in  that  line  in  chapter 
xi.  The  other  is  'Aram,  to  whom  are  given  four  sons. 
The  first  is  *Us,*  who  appears  in  xxii.  21  (J),  not  as  the 
son,  but  as  the  uncle  of  'Aram.  See  also  xxxvi.  28  (P), 
*  For  yi^'  the  Samaritans  read  y"in»  ^us. 


26o  77//;    WORLD  BEFORE   ABRAHAM    [X.  23,  24 

where  he  is  a  grandson  of  Se'ir  the  Horite.  According 
to  Lam.  iv.  21,  *Us  seems  to  include  'Edhom.*  This  would 
indicate  that  *Us  was  northwestern  Arabia,  where  the 
author  of  the  book,  of  Job  also,  who  makes  the  patriarch 
an  Arab  (i.  3)  and  represents  him  as  being  plundered  by 
the  Sabeans  (i.  15),  no  doubt  located  it.f  This  being 
taken  for  granted,  it  is  more  probable  that,  as  Glaser 
suggests  (SGA,  ii.  421  f.),  Hul  and  Gether  were  in  the 
northern  and  northeastern  part  of  the  same  country, 
than  that  either  of  them  was  in  northern  Syria  ;  J  espe- 
cially since  there  is  not  much  doubt  that  Mash  §  is  the 
region,  or  a  part  of  it,  so  called  by  the  Assyrians,  vzs., 
the  great  Syro-Arabian  desert  west  of  Babylonia.  See 
Schrader,  KB,  ii.  220  f.  ;  vi.  i,  202  f. ;  comp.  Glaser, 
SGA,  ii.  419  f. 

24.  This  verse  is  not  the  continuation  of  the  preceding. 
It  is  commonly  attributed  to  the  editor  who  compiled  the 
present  table  (Rp) ;  but,  since  v.  25  can  never  have  im- 
mediately followed  V.  21,  and  the  language  here  used  is 
Yahwistic,T[  it  is  better,  with  Bacon  {GG,  117),  to  refer 
it  to  the  author  of  the  Yahwistic  genealogy.  To  com- 
plete the  connection  with  v.  21,  supply.  And  the  firstborn 

*  In  Jer.  xxv.  20  f.,  where  'Us  occurs  with  'Edhom,  'Us  is  prob- 
ably interpolated.     See  the  Greek  Version. 

t  Glaser  (SGA,  ii.  411  ff.)  inclines  to  think  that  'Us  is  really  a 
synonym  of  Put,  which  he  takes  to  mean  western  Arabia,  overlook- 
ing the  fact  that  both  names  are  from  Priestly  sections  of  the 
chapter,  and  therefore  cannot  well  refer  to  the  same  region. 

t  On  Frd.  Dclitzsch's  attempt  (^Z/^,  259)  to  identify  *^j  and 
/////  with  an  Ussa  and  a  Hulia  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  see 
Schrader,  /CB,  i.  86  f.,  no  f.,  146  f. 

§  For  WO  the  Samaritans  read  SIC^,  as  in  7/.  30;  i  Chr.  i.  17, 
I^C'TS,  Mcshekh.     See  also  the  Greek  Version. 

K  The  verb  "rV  is  here  used  in  the  first  (Kal)  stem  in  the  sense 
of  beget,  as  it  always  is  in  Yahwistic  passages.     See  v.  26. 


X.  24,  25]  COMMENTS  261 

of  SJicvi  ivas  ' ArpakJisJuidJiy  or  something  equivalent, 
which  must  have  been  omitted  by  the  compiler,  when  vv. 
22  f.  were  inserted.  The  name  of  the  son  of  'Arpakh- 
shadh,  Shelah,  like  that  of  'Knosh  in  iv.  26,  is  probabl}' 
symbolical,  but  its  significance  is  uncertain.  This  Shekdi 
begot  'Ebher.*  The  name,  lit.  crossing,  seems  intended 
to  embody  a  tradition  to  the  effect  that  the  original  home 
of  the  Shemites  of  Arabia  as  well  as  Palestine  was  be- 
yond the  Euphrates.  The  corresponding  gentilic,  'Ibhri, 
Hebrew,  however,  is  used  only  of  Abraham  and  his  de- 
scendants through  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  that  chiefly  in 
cases  in  which  a  contrast  between  them  and  their  neigh- 
bors is  expressed  or  implied  (xiv.  13  ;  xxxix.  14;  xl.  15  ; 
xliii.  32).  The  tradition  with  reference  to  their  origin 
was  uniform  and  explicit.  See  xii.  5  (P) ;  xxiv.  i  ff.  (J)  ; 
Jos.  xxiv.  2  (E) ;  comp.  Meyer,  GA,  i.  §  289. 

25.  The  elder  of  the  two  sons  born  f  to  'Ebher  was 
Pelegh.  The  name  signifies  division,  separation.  To  a 
Hebrew  it  would  naturally  suggest  the  dispersion  from 
Babhel.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  to  find  it  explained 
by  the  causal  clause,  for  in  his  days  the  earth,  or, 
strictly  speaking,  its  population,  Tvas  separated.  See 
ix.  19;  comp.  Jub.  viii.  6  ff.  This  clause,  however,  is 
without  doubt  an  interpolation,  since  the  author  of  the 
table  would  hardly  have  called  attention  to  a  story  which 
contradicts  his  teaching  with  reference  to  the  origin  of 
the  peoples  and  their  languages.  The  second  son  of 
'Ebher  was  Yoktan.  He  has  generally  been  identified 
with  the  Kahtan  of  the  Mohammedan  genealogies  ;  but 
there  is  really  no  connection  between  the  two  names, 

*  The  Greek  version  introduces  a  Kainan  (Kenan)  between  She- 
lah and  'Ebher  here  as  in  xi.  12  f. 

t  For  "T^'^j  the  singular,  read,  with  the  Samaritans,  nb^^  the 
plural. 


262  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [X.  25-28 

and  there  is  no  evidence  that  Kahtan  —  originally  a 
tribe  ur  district  in  northern  Yemen  — was  recognized  by 
the  Arabs  as  their  eponym  until  they  became  acquainted 
with  this  table.  Glaser  {SGA,  ii.  423)  suggests  the  pos- 
sibihty  of  a  connection  between  Yoktan  and  Katan,  the 
name  of  several  districts  in  Arabia. 

26.  This  Yoktan  had  no  fewer  than  thirteen  sons. 
Some  of  their  names  are  very  familiar  ;  but  the  most  of 
them  occur  only  here  and  in  the  parallel  passage  in  the 
Chronicles  (i  Chr.  i.  20  ff.),  and  are  therefore  difficult  of 
identification.  'Almodhadh  is  among  those  that  have 
not  been  identified.  For  conjectures,  see  Die.  Bib.,  art. 
Al  Modad;  Glaser,  SGA,  ii.  425.  Sheleph  is  perhaps 
another  form  of  Salif  or  Sulaf,  the  name  of  a  tribe  in 
Yemen,  where  similar  names  abound.  See  Glaser,  SGA, 
ii.  425.  Hasarmaweth  is  Hadramaut,  a  district  on  the 
southern  coast  of  Arabia,  east  of  Yemen,  of  which  the 
Sabhtah  (Sabata)  of  v.  y  was  anciently  the  capital. 
Glaser  {SGAy  ii.  425)  identifies  Yerah  with  Mahrah,  in 
eastern  Hadramaut.     Comp.  Die.  Bib.,  diTt.Jerah. 

27.  The  traveler  just  quoted  claims  to  have  found 
Hadhoram  *  in  Dauram,  not  far  from  Sana  {SGA,  ii. 
435)  ;  and  'Uzal,t  also  Eze.  xxvii.  19  (Davidson),  in  the 
Azalla  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  (Schrader,  KB,  ii. 
220  f.),  which  he  locates  northeast  of  Medina  {SGA,  ii. 
430) ;  but  in  neither  case  is  there  sufficient  evidence  for 
a  safe  conclusion.     Diklah,  also,  awaits  identification. 

28.  There  is  a  place  called  'Obhal  %  in  the  Tihama, 
west  of  Yemen  (Glaser,  SGA,  ii.  427),  but  whether  there 
is  any  connection  between  it  and  the  place  or  tribe  here 

*  For  n^*nn  the  Samaritans  read  n~l*)TSN  *Adora?n. 
t  For  VtIS  the  Samaritans  read  bT"^S»  Heal. 
X  For  bnij?  the  Samaritans  read  b^^^,  'Ibhal,  while  the  Greek 
Version  omits  the  name  altocrcther. 


X.  28-30]  COMMENTS  263 

meant,  it  is  impossible  to  determine.  'Abhima'el  re- 
mains unidentified.  Shebha  is  the  Sabeans,  as  in  v.  7, 
where,  however,  they  are  derived  from  Kush. 

29.  Thus  far  but  two  of  the  sons  of  Yoktan,  Hasarma- 
weth  and  Shebha,  have  been  satisfactorily  identified,  but 
it  has  been  taken  for  granted  that  those  not  definitely 
located  should  be  sought  somewhere  in  the  Arabian 
peninsula.  It  is  therefore  natural  to  look  for  'Ophir  in 
the  same  region.  This  location  is  favored  by  the  ap- 
pearance, in  the  next  place,  of  Hawilah,  which,  in  ii.  11, 
a  related  passage,  can  hardly  mean  anything  but  the  Ara- 
bian desert  ;  also  by  v.  30,  from  which  it  is  clear  that  all 
the  tribes  or  districts  represented  by  the  sons  of  Yoktan, 
wherever  they  were,  were  contiguous.  See  v.  19.  Glaser 
(SGA,  ii.  353  ff.)  is  therefore  probably  correct  in  main- 
taining that  'Ophir  is  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment southeastern  Arabia,  along  the  Persian  Gulf.*  For 
other  views  see  Die.  Bib.,  art.  OpJiir.  Finally,  Yobhabh 
may  well  be  the  district  called  Yuhaibab  or  Yuhaibib  in 
the  Sabean  inscriptions  (Halevy),  which  Glaser  {SGA,  ii. 
303  ff.,424)  locates  in  the  neighborhood  of  Mecca. 

30.  Here,  as  in  v.  11,  the  author  closes  with  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  extent  of  the  territory  over  which  the  family 
in  question  spread  itself.  One  of  the  limits  laid  down 
is  Mesha,  for  which  one  would  most  naturally  look 
in  northern  Arabia,  where,  as  has  been  shown,  the 
]\Iash  of  V.  23  and   the  Assyrian   inscriptions  must  be 

*  The  objection  to  this  conclusion  based  on  i  Kgs.  x.  22,  that 
the  region  described  is  not  remote  enoujxh,  takes  for  granted  that 
the  author  of  the  passaije  cited  had  'Ophir  in  mind,  and  that  he 
and  the  Yahwist  located  it  in  the  same  region  ;  both  of  which 
points  are  open  to  question.  Kittel  thinks  i  Kgs.  ix.  26  ff.  and  x. 
22  are  from  different  sources,  and  explains  the  omission  of  'Opliir 
from  the  latter  passage  by  supposing  that  the  author  did  not  know 
where  it  was  situated. 


264  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [X.  30-32 

located.*  The  other  limit,  Sephar,  therefore,  was  prob- 
ably in  the  southern  part  of  the  peninsula ;  and,  if  the 
phrase  the  eastern  mountain  is  intended  to  define 
its  position,  more  probably  at  Zafar  on  the  coast  of 
eastern  Hadramaut,  than  at  the  place  of  the  same  name 
in  southern  Yemen.     Comp.  Dillmann. 

31.  On  the  formula  here  used,  see  v.  20.t 

32.  This  partial  summary  is  followed  by  one,  also  by 
the  Priestly  narrator,  including  all  the  families  of  the 
sons  of  Noah,  to  which  is  added  the  statement,  that 
from  these,  as  the  larger  divisions  of  the  race,  all  the 
nations  known  to  the  writer  dispersed  themselves 
after  the  Flood. 

The  above  discussion,  although  it  has  not  been  so  fruit- 
ful as  it  might  have  been,  has  made  possible  an  approxi- 
mately just  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  chapter.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  past  its  scientific  importance 
has  been  overestimated.  In  the  first  place,  as  has  been 
shown,  it  is  not  a  self-consistent  unit,  but  a  compilation 
consisting  of  a  table  by  the  Priestly  narrator,  apparently 
preserved  entire,  which  has  been  expanded  by  sometimes 
incongruous  additions  from  a  Yahwistic  source.  See  the 
divergent  representations  with  reference  to  the  origin  of 
the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  and  the  tribes  of  the 
Arabian  peninsula.  It  will  also  be  remembered  that  both 
of  the  sources  employed  are  sometimes  evidently  at  fault 
in  the  relations  in  which  they  place  the  peoples  enumer- 
ated. Thus,  e.  g.,  Misrayim  (Egypt)  and  Kena'an  are 
alike  sons  of  Kush  (P),  Sidhon  and  Heth  sons  of  Ke- 

*  Glascr  {SGA,  ii.  420  f.)  identifies  Mesha,  not  with  Mash,  but 
with  the  Massa  of  xxv.  14;  but  if,  as  is  <^enerally  agreed,  v.  23  and 
XXV.  12-17  ''ire  by  the  same  author  (P),  this  is  inadmissible. 

t  For  r:n^i:ib  read  Dn'*'):j>  as  in  vv.  5,  20,  32. 


XI.  I]  COMMENTS  2C5 

na*an  (J),  and  'Asshur  and  'Elarn  sons  of  Shem  (P) ; 
although  in  each  case  tlie  po()i)lcs  meant  belonged  to 
distinct  types  and  spoke  altt)gether  different  languages. 
Finally,  although  vv.  5  and  32  permit  one  to  suppose 
that  the  author  was  acquainted  with  more  peoples  than 
he  enumerated,  there  is  no  evidence  that  those  not  named 
included  either  black,  brown,  or  yellow  men,  or  any  whites 
beyond  the  limits  within  which  those  named  must  be 
located.  In  other  words,  the  table  covers  only  that  part 
of  the  earth  whose  northern  limit  is  the  Black  Sea,  its 
eastern  the  Caspian,  and  its  southern  the  strait  of  Bab 
el-Mandeb,  while  its  western  is  Tarshish  just  outside  the 
dimly  known  Mediterranean.  It  is  plain  that  a  docu- 
ment so  imperfect  cannot  be  regarded  as  authoritative  on 
the  subject  of  the  origin  of  the  peoples  into  which  the 
race  is  divided.  Still,  it  is  not  lightly  to  be  pronounced 
worthless.  It  doubtless  contains  material  of  interest  and 
importance  to  the  ethnologist.  In  any  case  the  religious 
ideas  underlying  it  must  elicit  the  admiration  of  the 
thoughtful  reader ;  for  it  teaches  (/)  that  the  race  is  one, 
and  {2)  that  the  rise  of  the  nations  and  languages  was  a 
part  of  the  divine  plan  (i.  28),  that  man  should  subdue 
the  earth,  and  govern  and  enjoy  it.  See  Ragozin,  Chal- 
dca,  1 3 1  ff . 

The  two  authors  from  whose  narratives  the  Table  of 
Nations  was  mostly  compiled  agree  in  teaching  that  the 
diversity  in  language,  etc.,  among  mankind  is  the  result 
of  dispersion  to  the  various  quarters  of  the  earth.  This 
was  not  the  only  view  of  the  matter  current  among  the 
Hebrews.     A  more  primitive  is  taught  in  the  story  of 

(2)  The  Confusion  of  Tongues  (xi.  1-9).  i.  It  be- 
gins with  the  declaration  that  at  first  the  "whole  earth, 
or  all  the  people  on  it,  were  of  one  language,  lit.  ///,  and 


266  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM     [XI.  1-3 

they  all  had  the  same  words ;  there  had  thus  far  not 
arisen  even  dialectic  variations  among  them. 

2.  At  this  time  the  whole  body  of  primitive  men 
moved  east^vard.  The  author  does  not  mention  the 
point  of  departure.  The  natural  inference  from  the  pre- 
ceding context  would  be  that  it  was  'Ararat,  or  its  vicin- 
ity ;  and  this  view  is  common  (Delitzsch).  The  author, 
however,  can  have  had  no  such  thought ;  for  the  land 
of  Shin'ar,  Babylonia,  was  not  eastward,  but  directly 
southward,  from  the  region  where  the  ark  grounded. 
The  text  evidently  requires  that  the  place  from  which 
the  movement  started  be  sought  to  the  west  of  Baby- 
lonia, /.  e.,  in  Arabia,  where  the  author  of  ii.  8  seems  to 
have  located  'Edhen :  which  means  that,  when  this  pas- 
sage was  written,  the  Yahwistic  narrative  did  not  contain 
an  account  of  the  Flood.  When  the  wanderers  came  to 
Shin'ar,  delighted  with  the  beauty  and  fertility  of  the 
country,  they  abode  there,  the  first  of  several  layers  of 
immigrants  from  the  same  direction.  See  Meyer,  GAy  i. 
§  131  f.;  Rogers, //^^,  i.  353  f- 

3.  Having  decided  to  wander  no  more,  they  proceeded 
to  build  themselves  houses.  To  this  end,  since  neither 
stone  nor  wood  in  any  quantity  was  within  their  reach, 
they  resolved  to  use  bricks.  The  Babylonians  of  later 
times  employed  the  same  material.  Their  bricks  were  of 
two  kinds,  sun-dried  and  kiln-burned.  The  former  were 
used  for  cheap  buildings,  and  for  the  interiors  of  more 
ambitious  structures.  See  Ragozin,  Chaldca,  39  f.  If 
it  was  desired  that  a  structure  be  particularly  substan- 
tial and  enduring,  the  builder  would  naturally,  like  those 
of  this  story,  need  burned  bricks,  and  wish  to  burn  them 
thoroughly.  The  bricks  thus  provided  were  laid,  not  in 
mortar,  but  in  a  stronger  cement,  the  bitumen  to  this 
day  supplied  by  the  wells  at  Hit  on  the  Euphrates  above 


XI.  3,  4]  COMMENTS  267 

Babylon.     See  Ragozin,  Chaldcay  42  ff.  ;  Rogers,  IIBAy 
i.  287  f. 

4.  iLncouraged  by  their  success  in  securing  proper 
materials,  mankind  began  to  plan  larger  things.  They 
aspired  to  build  a  city.  Now  a  city,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  present  passage  refers  to  a  later  date  than  iv.  17, 
was  not  an  unheard-of  enterprise.  This,  however,  was  to 
be  a  much  larger  city  than  that  of  Hanokh.  Moreover, 
it  was  to  have  a  tO"wer  so  high  that  its  top  would  seem 
lost  in  heaven.  Towers  of  this  sort,  called  zikkiirats, 
were  common  in  Babylonia.  Many  of  them  had  names 
indicating  their  great  height.  Thus,  one  at  Lagash  was 
called  "the  summit  house,"  *  one  at  Agade  "the  house 
reaching  to  heaven  "  f  one  at  Larsa  **  the  link  of  heaven 
and  earth,"  \  etc.  See  Jastrow,  KB  A,  616  ff.,  639.  They 
were  symbolic  structures,  representing  the  mountain  on 
which  the  gods  were  supposed  to  dwell  (Jastrow,  RBA, 
612  ff.  ;  also  Eze.  xxviii.  14)  ;  and  those  who  erected  them 
sought  by  so  doing  to  obtain  the  favor  of  the  divinities 
to  whom  they  were  dedicated  (Schrader,  KB,  iii.  2,  6f.§). 
At  the  same  time  they  gratified  human  pride.  A  He- 
brew would  naturally  regard  all  such  works  as  products 
of  a  lust  for  glory.  Hence  the  author  of  this  story  repre- 
sents the  builders  of  the  zikkurat  whose  erection  he  is 
describing  as  impelled  by  the  desire  to  make  themselves 

*  E-pa.  t  E-an-dadia.  %  E-dur-an-ki. 

§  Nabopolassar  concludes  his  account  of  the  reconstruction  of 
the  zikkurat  of  the  temple  of  Marduk  in  Babylon  as  follows  : 
"Marduk,  my  lord,  look  graciously  upon  my  pious  deeds.  By  thy 
lofty  command,  which  may  not  be  changed,  may  the  work,  the 
product  of  my  hands,  endure  forever.  As  the  wall  of  E-temen-an- 
ki  [the  name  of  the  tower]  is  fixed  forever,  so  establish  my  throne 
firm  to  the  remotest  time.  E-temen-an-ki,  to  the  king  who  restored 
thee  be  gracious.  When  Marduk,  amid  rejoicing,  enters  thee,  O 
house,  proclaim  to  Marduk  my  lord  my  piety." 


268  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [XI.  4-7 

a  name.  This  explains  the  tower.  The  motive  they 
give  for  the  enterprise  as  a  whole  is,  lest  we  be  scat- 
tered over  the  face  of  the  whole  earth.* 

5.  When  the  plan  proposed  had  been  adopted  and 
partially  executed,  Yahweh,  the  same  who  brought  the 
animals  to  'Adham  to  see  what  he  would  call  them  (ii. 
19),  and  called  to  him  in  the  garden  to  know  where  he 
was  (iii.  9),  came  down  to  see  the  city,  but  especially 
the  tower, f  that  the  sons  of  men  had  built,  or,  more 
exactly,  had  brought  to  an  advanced  stage  of  construc- 
tion.    See  V.  8. 

6.  He  was  not  pleased  with  the  enterprise.  He  saw 
at  once  whence  came  the  impulse  to  it.  They  were  one 
people,  and  they  had  the  consciousness  of  strength  that 
must  sooner  or  later  come  to  a  united  multitude.  He 
saw,  too,  that  this  was  their  first  %  exploit,  only  the 
beginning  of  the  things  that  they  would  undertake,  un- 
less something  was  done  to  check  their  presumption. 
Nothing  that  they  plan  §  to  do,  he  says,  will  be  too 
hard  for  them. 

7.  These  words  seem  to  have  been  addressed  to  the 
angels  by  Yahweh  on  his  return  to  his  palace  above  the 
clouds  (Am.  ix.  6).  He  now  takes  the  attendant  spirits 
into  his  plan  for  frustrating  the  ambition  of  mankind. 

*  The  construction  in  this  verse  is  undoubtedly  somewhat  con- 
fusing, but  the  naturalness  of  the  tower  in  tlie  plan  of  a  Babylonian 
city  makes  the  theory  that  the  text  is  here  composite  decidedly 
improbable.  The  analysis  proposed  by  Gunkel,  who  makes  the 
lust  for  fame  the  motive  for  building  the  city,  and  the  dread  of 
separation  that  for  erecting  the  tower,  is  certainly  mistaken. 

t  Hall  (jmits  b-r2!2n  ns> 

X  For  cbnn  Bail,  following  the  Greek  Version,  reads  ibfin* 
§  On  ^!2r,  for  :^!2T;.  and,  in  v.  7,  nbn^.  for  nbh2»  see  Ges.  §  dT, 
R  n.         ■' 


XI.  7-9]  COMMENTS  2(x) 

Come,  he  says,  let  us  go  down,*  and  there  confound 
their  language.  The  explanatory  clause,  so  that  they 
'Will  not  understand  one  another's  language,  nuist 
not  be  taken  too  literally,  since  such  a  decree  would  have 
abolished  the  family,  and  rendered  the  continuance  of 
the  race  impossible.  It  should  also  be  remembered  that, 
although,  according  to  x.  25,  the  dispersion  occurred  in 
the  fourth  generation  after  the  Flood,  the  present  writer, 
since  he  betrays  no  knowledge  of  any  such  catastrophe, 
must  have  thought  of  mankind  as  much  more  numerous 
when  they  were  scattered  than  the  author  of  that  passage 
could  have  conceived  them.     See  vi.  i. 

8.  The  means  proposed  was  adopted,  —  for  a  statement 
to  that  effect,  see  v.  9,  — and  produced  the  desired  result. 
Thereby  Yahweh  scattered  mankind  thence  over  the 
face  of  the  "whole  earth,  and,  in  consequence,  they 
ceased,  no  longer  continued,  to  build  the  city.f 
See  V.  5. 

9.  The  city  thus  left  unfinished  —  whether  it  ever  had 
any  other  name,  the  author  omits  to  say  —  was  thence- 
forth called  Babhel,  Babylon,  because  there  Yahweh 
confounded  the  language  of  the  whole  earth.  The 
idea  of  the  author  seems  to  be,  that  the  name  Bab/iel\v2iS 
derived  from  the  verb  rendered  cojifound  ;\  but,  since 
Babhel  is  only  another  form  of  the  Babylonian  compound 
Bad-zlUyVneaning  "the  gate  of  the  god,"  it  is  probable  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  story  here  narrated  was  suggested 
by  the  similarity  between  the  two  vocables.      The  re- 

*  The  transfer  of  the  scene  from  earth  to  heaven,  it  must  be 
admitted,  is  unexpected,  but  it  hardly  seems  to  warrant  the  con- 
clusion that  this  verse  is  by  a  different  author  from  v.  5.  Comp. 
Gunkel. 

t  The  Samaritans  add  bm^SH  nsi'  a/i(/  the  tower.  See  also 
the  Greek  Version. 

X  bb>  balal. 


270  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM       [XI.  9 

maining  materials  for  it  were  doubtless  gathered  from 
current  reports  concerning  a  ruined  tower  of  immemorial 
antiquity  located  in  Babylon.  The  fact  that  the  author 
makes  the  tower  a  part  of  the  city  is  overlooked  by  those 
(Delitzsch)  who,  following  Jewish  tradition  {Bo'.  Rab., 
172),  identify  it  with  the  zikkurat  of  the  temple  of  Nebo 
at  Borsippa,  now  Birs  Nimrud,  on  the  west  bank  of  the 
Euphrates  not  far  from  the  capital,  finding  support  for 
their  view  in  the  fact  that  this  tower  stood  a  long  time  un- 
finished, and  finally  fell  into  ruins,  before  Nebuchadrez- 
zar restored  it.*  A  safer  view  is  that  it  was  the  equally 
famous  zikkurat  of  the  temple  of  Marduk,  the  tutelar 
divinity  of  Babylon,  which,  after  it  had  long  been  in  ruins, 
Nabopolassar  (625-604)  rebuilt  (Schrader,  KB,  iii.  2,  2  ff.) 
and  Nebuchadrezzar  completed  {KB,  iii.  2,  30  f.,  40  f.). 
According  to  a  tablet  discovered  by  George  Smith  {The 
Athcnceiim,  Feb.  12,  1876),  it  was  built  in  stages,  with 
the  sides  facing  the  cardinal  points  ;  the  first  stage  being 
300  ft.  square  and  1 10  ft.  high,  the  second  260  square  and 
60  high,  the  third  200  square  and  20  high,  the  fourth  170 
square  and  20  high,  the  fifth  140  square  and  20  high,  the 
sixth  no  (i*)  square  and  20  high,  while  the  seventh  was 
the  sanctuary  80  by  70  ft.  in  area  and  50  ft.  high  ;  the  en- 
tire height  being  equal  to  the  length  of  each  side  of  the 
base,  300  feet.  It  was  called  E-temen-an-ki,  "  The  house 
of  the  foundation  of  heaven  and  earth."    This  is  the  tower 

*  The  great  king  describes  (Schrader,  KB,  iii.  2,  52  ff.)  the  con- 
dition of  the  structure  before  its  restoration  as  follows  :  "  At  that 
time  E-ur-imin-an-ki  [the  house  of  the  seven  divisions  of  heaven  and 
earth],  the  zikkurat  of  Barsip,  which  a  former  king  had  built,  raising 
it  to  the  height  of  forty-two  cubits,  but  not  rearing  its  top,  had  from 
a  remote  date  been  in  ruins.  Its  gutters  had  not  been  kept  in 
order;  rains  and  storms  had  torn  down  its  walls  ;  the  tiles  of  its 
facing  had  burst  asunder  ;  the  bricks  of  its  sanctuary  had  fallen  in 
heaps." 


XI.  9,  10]  COMMENTS  271 

which,  in  its  ruined  condition,  is  here  used  to  illustrate  the 
wantonness  and  the  futility  of  godless  ambition.* 

In  the  Priestly  narrative  the  table  of  the  nations  was 
followed  immediately  by  a  genealogy,  resembling  that  of 
chapter  v.,  of 

b.  The  Line  of  Shem  (xi.  10-26). 

This  time,  however,  the  totals  are  omitted,  also  the 
formal  statement  in  each  case,  that  the  given  patriarch 
died.f 

10.  Shem  was  a  hundred  years  old  before  he  had  any 
children,  older  than,  according  to  the  correct  text,  were 
any  of  the  antediluvian  patriarchs  except  'Adham,  Sheth, 
and  Noah.  The  reason  for  the  postponement  of  pater- 
nity in  his  case  was  the  same  as  in  that  of  Noah,  the 
necessarily  limited  capacity  of  the  ark.  When  the  Flood 
was  over,  the  restriction  upon  the  increase  of  the  family 
that  survived  was  removed  and  'Arpakhshadh  was  born. 
That,  since  Shem  was  born  after  Noah  was  five  hundred 
years  of  age,  would  be  in  Noah's  six  hundred  and  first 
year,  which  was  the  second  year  of  the  Flood  (viii.  13  f.), 
or,  as  the  Hebrews  expressed  it,  tTvo  years  after  the 
Flood.  J  See  ix.  28  f.  ;  comp.  Holzinger.  This  interpre- 
tation makes  the  present  passage  consistent  with  itself, 

*  The  above  discussion  has  made  it  clear  that  the  story  of  the 
tower  of  Babhel,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  preserved  in  the 
Old  Testament,  is  of  Hebrew  origin.  Whether  there  was  an  in- 
digenous legend  on  the  subject,  is,  for  the  present,  uncertain.  The 
one  reported  by  Eusebius  {PE,  ix.  14)  as  derived  from  Berosus  is 
but  another  form  of  the  Hebrew  story. 

t  The  Samaritans  have  both  items,  the  Greek  Version  only  the 
latter. 

X  If,  as  Budde  {BU,  loS  f.)  maintains,  the  last  clause  is  a  gloss, 
the  above  is  simply  the  glossator's  interpretation  of  the  original 
author's  statement. 


272  THE    WORLD   BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [XI.  10-12 

but  renders  only  more  apparent  the  discrepancy  between 
it  and  x.  22,  where  'Arpakhshadh  is  not  the  first,  but  the 
third,  son  of  his  father.  The  new  difficulty  seems  best 
met  by  supposing,  with  Delitzsch,  that,  in  chapter  x.,  the 
order  is  determined  by  the  distribution  of  the  peoples 
which  the  sons  of  Shem  there  represent.     Comp.  Gunkel. 

1 1.  Shem  did  not  attain  the  age  of  any  of  the  antedi- 
hivian  patriarchs  except  Hanokh  ;  yet  he  lived,  after  the 
birth  of  'Arpakhshadh,  five  hundred  years,  so  that  his 
total  was  six  hundred. 

12.  In  chapter  x.  'Arpakhshadh  was  one  of  a  number 
of  peoples ;  here  the  name  is  treated  as  if  it  denoted  an 
individual.  He  was  but  thirty-five  years  old  when  his 
first  son  was  born.  This  is  an  early  age  as  compared 
with  that  of  Shem,  but,  when  compared  with  that  at  which 
Lemekh  and  those  before  him  began  to  beget  children, 
it  is  none  too  early  to  harmonize  with  the  author's  theory 
of  a  gradual  decrease,  not  only  in  the  length  of  human 
life,  but  in  the  period  preceding  paternity.*  On  the 
name  Shelah,f  see  the  comment  to  x.  22. 

*  This  fact  seems  to  prove  that  the  Massoretic  reading,  and  not 
that  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Greek  Version,  a  hun- 
dred and  thirty-five,  is  the  original.  The  same  must  be  said  in  the 
cases  of  the  next  five  patriarchs,  in  each  of  which  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between  the  Hebrew  and  the  other  texts  of  just  a  hundred 
years,  and  in  that  of  the  sixth,  where  the  difference  amounts  to  only 
fifty  years.  The  object  in  raising  the  age  of  paternity  doubtless 
was  to  lengthen  the  period  between  the  Flood  and  the  birth  of 
'Abhram,  and  thus  relieve  the  reader  from  the  necessity  of  believing 
that  none  of  the  preceding  nine  patriarchs  died  until  forty-eight 
years  after  this  last  was  born. 

t  Here,  also,  the  Greek  Version  introduces  Kainan  between 
'Arpakhshadh  and  Shelah,  and  Dillmann  favors  this  reading.  See 
also  Lu.  iii.  36.  The  fact  that  the  number  of  years  assigned,  and 
the  length  of  the  periods  into  which  they  are  divided,  are  the  same 
as  in  the  case  of  Shelah,  however,  sustains  the  opinion  already  ex- 


XI.  13-17]  COMMENTS  ^y^ 

13.  The  second  period  of 'Arpakhshadh's  life  was  long, 
four  hundred  and  three  years,  in  comparison  with  the 
first ;  yet  the  total  fell  considerably  short  of  that  of  his 
father.* 

14.  Shelah  had  lived  only  thirty  years  when  'Ebher 
was  born.  On  the  name  and  its  significance,  see  *  the 
comment  to  x.  24. 

15.  The  sum  of  Shelah's  years  was  thirty ///^j- four 
hundred  and  three,!  or  four  hundred  and  thirty-three. 

16.  In  the  case  of  'Ebher  the  age  of  paternity  is  raised 
to  thirty-four  without  any  apparent  reason.:|:  On  Felegh 
his  son,  see  the  comment  to  x.  25. 

17.  The  second  period  of  'Ebher's  life,  according  to 
the  received  text,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  ; 
but,  since  the  addition  of  this  number  would  raise  his 
total  above  that  of  his  father  or  grandfather,  and  there 
is  no  other  instance  of  this  sort  in  the  table,  it  is  probable 
that  the  Samaritans  are  correct  in  making  the  total  four 
hundred  and  four,  and  that,  therefore,  'Ebher  should  be 

pressed,  that  the  patriarch  is  an  importation.  His  name  seems  to 
have  been  added  to  make  the  number  in  the  table  ten  without  that 
of  either  Noah  or  'Abhram. 

*  In  the  Samaritan  text  the  hundred  or  fifty  added  to  the  first 
period  is  deducted  from  the  second,  so  that  the  totals  remain  un- 
changed. Not  so  in  the  Greek  Version.  In  this  case  for  four 
hundred  a?id  three  the  latter  has  four  hundred  and  thirty,  making 
the  total  five  hundred  and  sixty-five. 

f  For'the  three  hundred  and  tht'ee  which  one  would  expect  in 
this  case  the  Greek  Version  has  three  hundred  and  thirty,  making 
a  total  of  four  hundred  and  sixty. 

X  In  vv.  12  and  14  the  subject  precedes  the  verb.  The  order  is 
now  reversed,  and  the  new  construction  is  used  for  the  rest  of  the 
table.  The  change  does  not  favor  lUidde's  suggestion  {FH/,  413  f.), 
that  the  names  'Arpakhshadh  and  Shelah  were  added  to  the  gene- 
alogy by  the  Priestly  narrator.  It  would  rather  point  to  Rp  as  the 
supplementcr.     See,  however,  the  comment  to  x.  24. 


274  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [XI.  17-24 

represented  as  living,   after   the   birth  of  his  first  son, 
three  hundred  and  seventy  years.* 

18.  The  firstborn  of  Pelegh  was  Re'u.  The  name  re- 
minds one  of  Ruua,  the  designation  for  an  Aramaean 
tribe  of  southern  Babylonia  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
Ass^Tian  inscriptions  (Frd.  Delitzsch,  WLP,  237  ff. ; 
Schrader,  KB,  ii.  10  f.,  etc.)  ;  but  it  is  doubtful  if  Glaser 
{SGA,  ii.  408)  is  correct  in  identifying  them. 

19.  In  X.  25  Pelegh  is  connected  with  the  dispersion. 
If  the  author  here  had  such  a  connection  in  mind,  it  may 
explain  the  abrupt  abridgment,  with  him,  of  human  life 
by  nearly  two  hundred  years.  At  any  rate,  he  lived 
after  the  birth  of  Re'u  only  two  hundred  and  nine  f 
years,  so  that  his  total  was  only  two  hundred  and  thirty- 
nine. 

20.  Serugh,  the  firstborn  of  Re'u,  is  commonly  iden- 
tified with  Sarug,  a  district  a  day's  journey  north  of 
Haran.     Comp.  Glaser,  SGA^  ii.  408. 

22.  The  name  Nahor,  which  Serugh  gave  his  eldest 
son,  is  a  familiar  one.  Elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament, 
however,  except  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Chronicles 
(i  Chr.  i.  26),  Nahor  is  the  brother  of  'Abhram  {v.  26) 
and  the  father  of  the  Aramaeans  (xxii.  20  ff .).  It  is  pro- 
bable that  this  name  was  added  at  the  same  time  with 
'Arpakhshadh  and  Shelah,  when  the  number  was  in- 
creased from  seven  to  ten.     Comp.  Budde,  B[/,  413  f. 

24.   Of  all  the  patriarchs  Nahor  was  youngest,   only 

*  This  is  the  actual  readinsj  of  the  Greek  Version,  according 
to  which,  therefore,  'Ebher  lived  in  all  yive  Jnmdred  and  four 
years. 

t  The  transfer  of  a  hundred  years  from  the  second  to  the  first 
period  by  the  Samaritans  makes  it  appear  that  Re'u  and  the  three 
followinj^  patriarchs  lived  considerably  longer  before  than  after 
they  began  to  have  children. 


XI.  24-26]  COMMENTS  275 

twenty-nine,*  when  his  first  son  was  born.  The 
theories  with  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  name  of  his 
son  Terah  are  various,  the  latest  being  that  of  Jensen 
{HA,  153),  who  identifies  it  with  that  of  a  Hittite  god, 
Tarhii. 

25.  Here  again  the  second  period  is  unusually  short- 
ened, being  but  a  hundred  and  nineteen  years,  so  that 
Nahor  lived  in  all  only  a  hundred  and  forty-eight,  f 

26.  This  list,  like  that  of  chapter  v.,  ends  with  a  father 
who  has  three  sons.  Here,  too,  as  in  the  preceding  case, 
the  author  gives  the  age,  seventy  years,  of  the  father 
when  the  first  son  was  born.  The  three  sons  of  Terah 
were  Abhram,  Nahor,  and  Haran. 

The  reasons  given  for  doubting  the  historicity  of  the 
table  in  chapter  v.,  with  a  single  exception  (j),  apply  to 
this  one.  Moreover,  by  reducing  the  age  of  paternity, 
without  correspondingly  reducing  the  total  of  years,  the 
author  exposed  himself  to  an  objection  quite  as  serious  as 
the  one  he  avoided.  It  is  also  incredible  that  all  the 
persons  —  taking  for  granted  that  the  names  represent 
persons  —  here  mentioned,  including  'Abhram,  were  born 
forty-eight  years  before  any  of  them  died  ;  that  three  of 
the  others  outlived  'Abhram ;  and  that  *Ebher  survived 

*  For  twenty-nine  the  Samaritans  read  seventy-nine,  the  increase 
of  only  fifty  being  necessary  to  make  the  death  of  Nahor  fall  in  the 
year  before  the  birth  of  'Abhram,  and  the  death  of  Terah  in  the 
year  in  which  'Abhram  left  Haran  (xii.  4).  See  Acts  vii.  4.  The 
Cireek  Version  agrees  with  the  Samaritan  text  so  far  as  the  reading 
seventy-nine  is  concerned,  but  in  this  case  the  number  added  has 
no  significance.  To  produce  the  result  obtained  by  the  Samaritans 
the  Greek  translators  would  have  had  to  add  sixty  to  the  age  of 
Terah  at  the  birth  of  'Abhram  as  well  as  to  the  total  of  the  years  of 
Nahor. 

t  Vox  a  Jiundred  and  nineteen  the  (Ireck  Version  has  a  hundred 
and  twenty- nine,  making  a  total  of  two  hundred  and  eight. 


276  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [XL  26 

seven  years  after  Joseph  had  been  sold  into  Egypt.  The 
modifications  in  the  Samaritan  text  and  the  Greek  Ver- 
sion relieve  this  difficulty,  but,  as  has  been  shown,  create 
the  one  that  the  original  author  avoided.* 

*  The  following  tables  exhibit  all  the  data  used  in  the  above 
discussion  and  the  results  deduced  from  them.  The  first  is  a  com- 
parative view  of  the  figures  representing  the  two  periods  of  the  life 
of  each  of  the  patriarchs,  according  to  the  three  authorities  cited, 
and  their  totals ;  the  variants  from  the  Massoretic  text  being  in 
heavy  type. 

Firstborn  Remainder  Total 

iT    S  ~G  H  S  G  H  S    ~"g 

Shem 100     100  100  500  500  500  600  600  600 

'Arpakhshadh 35    135  135  403  303  430  438  438  565 

Kenan I30  .  .  33O                      .  .  460 

Shelah 30    130  130  403  303  330  433  433  460 

'Ebher 34    134  134  370  270  370  404  404  504 

Pelegh 30    130  130  209  log  209  239  239  339 

Re'u 32    132  132  207  107  207  239  239  339 

Serugh 30    130  130  200  100  200  230  230  330 

•Nahor 29      79  79  119  69  129  148  148    208 

Terah 70      70  70  135  75  135  145  145  205 

The  second  shows  in  what  year  after  the  first  of  the  Flood  each 
of  the  patriarchs,  including  Noah  and  'Abhram,  was  born,  and  ia 
what  year  he  died. 

Birth-date  Death-date 

iT  S  G  iT  S  G 

Noah 350  350  350 

Shem ..  ..  501  501  501 

'Arpakhshadh i  i  i  439  439  566 

Kenan 136  596 

Shelah 36  136  266  469  569  726 

'Ebher 66  266  396  470  670  900 

Pelegh 100  400  530  339  639  869 

Re'u 130  530  660  369  769  999 

Serugh 162  662  792  392  882  1122 

Nahor 192  792  922  340  940  1 130 

Terah 221  871  looi  366  1016  1206 

'Abhram 291  941  1071  466  11 16  1246 


XI.  27, 28]  COMMENTS  277 

The  first  general  division  of  the  book  of  Genesis  closes 
with  a  third  genealogy,  that  of 

c.  The  Family  of  Terah  {vv.  27-32). 

27.  The  title  is  followed  by  a  repetition  of  the  names 
of  the  sons  of  Terah.  The  first  is  'Abhram.  He  is 
also  called  'Abhraham.  The  latter  name  is  probably  a 
local  or  dialectical  variation  upon  the  former.  The 
Priestly  narrator,  in  xviii.  5,  interprets  it  as  a  pledge 
given  to  the  patriarch  that  he  would  be  "  the  father  of 
a  multitude  of  nations."*  Nahor,  according  to  this  au- 
thor the  second  of  his  name,  at  once  drops  as  com- 
pletely out  of  sight  as  his  grandfather,  not  being  men- 
tioned even  in  the  notice  of  the  migration  from  'Ur  to 
Haran  (t\  31).  The  reason  for  thus  dismissing  him' is 
not  far  to  seek.  The  author  having,  in  x.  22,  made  'Aram 
a  brother  of  'Arpakhshadh,  could  not  let  Nahor  remove 
to  Haran  and  so  become,  what  the  Yahwist  (xxii.  21) 
says  he  was,  the  progenitor  of  the  Aramaeans.  The 
suggestion  has  been  made  (Wellhausen),  that  Haran  is 
only  another  form  of  Haran  ;  but  this  would  imply  the 
idea  that  Haran  was  the  father  of  the  Aramaeans,  an 
idea  that  the  author  could  certainly  not  have  entertained. 
The  only  son  of  Haran  was  Lot,  who  finally  accompanied 
his  uncle  'Abhram  to  Kena'an  (xiii.  I2).t 

28.  This  is  all  that  the  Priestly  narrator  has  to  say  of 
Haran.     The  Yahwist,  from  whose  work  vv.  28-30  were 

*  The  original  meaning  of  the  name  is  doubtful;  but  the  favor- 
ite theory  is  that  it  is  another  form  of  'Abhiram,  my  father  is  ex- 
alted (Num.  xvi.  I  ff.),  as  'Abhner  is  of  'Abhiner  (i  Sam.  xiv.  50). 
On  a  corresponding  Assyrian  name,  Aburamu,  see  Schrader,  KA  7", 
200,  479. 

t  Note  that  P,  with  his  customarj'  regard  for  the  reputation  of 
his  worthies,  seems  to  have  omitted  the  obscene  legend  by  which 
J  accounts  for  the  Moabites  and  the  Ammonites.     See  xix.  29. 


278  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM    [XI.  28-31 

taken,  says  that  he  died  before,  in  the  presence  of,  and 
therefore  in  advance  of,  Terah  his  father  in  the  land 
of  his  birth.  If  no  name  were  given  to  this  land,  one 
would  naturally  identify  it  with  Mesopotamia ;  for  this 
is  called  the  land  of  'Abhram's  birth  (xxiv.  7),  and  Haran 
the  city  of  Nahor  (xxiv.  10).  It  is  therefore  a  surprise 
to  find  that,  according  to  the  text,  the  land  in  question 
was  'Ur  of  the  Kaldeans.  In  fact  this  explanatory 
phrase  sounds  so  strange  in  this  connection  that  many 
authorities  regard  it  as  an  interpolation  for  the  purpose 
of  harmonizing  the  Yahwistic  with  the  Priestly  narra- 
tive.    See  also  xv.  7  ;  comp.  Delitzsch. 

29.  The  natural  inference  from  the  order  in  which  the 
sons  of  Terah  are  mentioned  is  that  Haran  was  the 
youngest.  Yet  he  seems  to  have  married,  and  his  off- 
spring to  have  become  adult,  before  his  brothers  took 
themselves  "wives ;  for  Nahor  married  his  daughter. 
'Abhram  chose  Saray,  who,  according  to  xx.  12  (E),  was 
his  half-sister.  She  is  later  called  Sarah,  her  name,  ac- 
cording to  xvii.  15  (P),  having  been  changed  at  the  same 
time  with  that  of  her  husband.  The  name  of  the  "wife 
of  Nahor  was  Milkah.  See  xxii.  20  ff.  Milkah  had  a 
sister,  Yiskah ;  but  she  plays  no  part  in  the  story. 

30.  In  process  of  time  'Abhram  discovered  that  Saray 
•was  barren,  a  circumstance  that  furnishes  a  background 
for  much  of  the  subsequent  history  of  the  patriarch.* 

31.  The  rest  of  the  chapter  is  of  Priestly  origin,  the 
continuation  and  conclusion  of  v.  27.  The  reason  for 
the  migration  of  Terah  and  his  family,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Nahor,f  is  not  given.     Tradition  seems  to  teach 

*  For  ibl  the  Samaritans  read  iV- 

t  The  Samaritans,  feeling  this  omission,  have  clumsily  supplied 
it  as  follows:  and ^aray  and  Milkah  his  daughters-in-laWy  the 
ti/ife  of  'Abhram  and  Nahor  his  sons. 


X 1 .  3 1  ]  COMMENTS  2  79 

that  he  left  his  home  to  escape  idolatrous  associations. 
See  Jub.  xii.  If,  however,  he  originally  "went  forth* 
from  'Ur  of  the  Kaldeans,  it  is  probable  that  the 
change  of  residence  was  occasioned  by  political  consid- 
erations, perhaps  an  invasion  of  the  'Elamites.  See 
Meyer,  GA,  i.  §S  135  ff.  ;  Rogers,  HBA,  i.  379  ff.  'Ur  is 
no  doubt  the  Uru  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  one  of 
the  most  ancient  and  famous  of  the  cities  of  Babylonia ; 
its  history  as  a  religious  as  well  as  commercial  centre 
going  back  nearly  four  thousand  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era.  Its  ruins  have  been  unearthed  at  Mugheir 
near  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates  a  little  below  the 
site  of  'Orekh.  See  Schrader,  KAT,  129  ff.  ;  Rogers, 
NBA,  i.  370 ff.  ;  McCurdy,  HPM,  i.  ii7f.  ;  comp.  Kit- 
tel,  ////,  i.  iSi  ff.  The  destination  of  the  emigrants 
was  the  land  of  Kena'an ;  but  when  they  reached 
Haran,  now  Harran,  on  the  Belias  (Belik),  a  tributary 
of  the  upper  Euphrates,  for  some  reason,  perhaps  the 
feebleness  of  Terah,  they  stopped  there.  Haran  is  first 
mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  records  by  Tiglath-pileser  I. 
(c.  1 100)  ;  but  it  was  much  older  than  his  time,  and  it 
remained  an  important  religious  and  commercial  centre 
long  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian  empire.  See 
Schrader,  KB,  i.  38  f.  ;  iii.  2,  96  ff.  ;  Eze.  xxvii.  23  ;  Mc- 
Curdy, HPM,  i.  84  f.  It,  like  'Ur,  was  a  seat  of  the 
worship  of  Sin  (the  moon),  a  fact  that  indicates  a  close 
relation  between  the  two  cities  and  doubtless  explains 
the  route  taken  by  Terah  and  his  family. 

*  In  the  Massoretic  text  the  verb  is  plural  and  is  followed  by 
CnN.  This  is  an  impossible  comhination,  which  must  be  remedied 
by  reading  IPS'  with  him,  for  nns»  ivifh  them  (Ball)  ;  or,  better, 
by  changing  ISli**"!  to  S!^"'1'  and  he  went  forth,  with  the  Syriac 
Version,  as  above,  or  CDS  ")S!^;*."1  to  CHS  Sl"1"*1'  and  he  brouj^ht 
thefnjorth,  with  the  Samaritans  and  the  Greek  Version. 


28o  THE    WORLD  BEFORE  ABRAHAM      [XI.  32 

32.  The  Massorctic  text  gives  to  Terah  a  total  of  two 
hundred  and  five  years.  So  also  the  Greek  Version. 
The  Samaritans,  however,  make  the  number  a  hundred 
and  forty-five,  and  this  is  probably  the  correct  read- 
ing. The  reasons  for  this  conclusion  are  the  following  : 
(/)  There  is  no  other  case  in  this  chapter  in  which  the 
son  lives  longer  than  the  father.  {2)  In  all  other  cases 
the  totals  are  the  same  in  the  Massoretic  as  in  the  Sa- 
maritan text.  ( j)  It  is  hardly  probable  that  any  one 
so  careful  as  the  present  writer  would  adopt  figures  that 
would  make  'Abhram  appear  to  have  left  his  father  sixty 
years  alone  in  Haran.  Substitute  the  Samaritan  for  the 
present  reading  and  the  year  of  Terah's  death  becomes 
the  seventy-fifth  of  'Abhram,  the  year  in  which,  in  obe- 
dience to  the  call  of  God  (xii.  4),  the  latter  continued  his 
journey  to  Kena'an.     See  also  Acts  vii.  4. 


APPENDIX 

The  Babylonian  Account   of  the   Deluge;   from 
Tablet  XI.  of  the  Gilgamesh  Epic* 

Said  Ut-napishtim  to  Gilgamesh  : 

"  I  will  reveal  to  thee,  Gilgamesh,  a  precious  matter ; 
lo  And  the  decree  of  the  gods  I  will  relate  to  thee. 

Shurippak,  a  city  known  to  thee, 

Lying  on  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  — 

When  that  city  had  become  old,  the  gods  in  its  midst. 

The  great  gods,  were  moved  in  their  hearts  to  cause  a 
flood. 
15  Therein  were  their  father,  Anu, 

Their  counsellor,  the  warrior  Bel, 

Their  herald,  Ninib, 

Their  leader,  Ennugi. 

The  all-wise  Ea  sat  with  them,  and 
20  Their  words  he  repeated  to  a  hurdle : 

'  Hurdle,  hurdle  !  wall,  wall  ! 

Hurdle  hear,  and  wall  attend  ! 

Man  of  Shuruppak,  son  of  Ubar-tutu, 

Plan  a  structure,  build  a  ship ; 
25  Leave  riches,  look  after  lives  ; 

Goods  hate,  life  preserve. 

Living  things  of  all  kinds  embark  in  the  ship. 

The  ship  that  thou  shall  build  — 

Its  size  shall  be  measured  ; 
30  Its  width  and  its  length  shall  correspond ; 

Into  the  deep  launch  (?)  it.' 

*  For  the  oriiicinal  transliterated,  see  Schrader,  KByV\.  i,  230  ff. 
The  lines  are  here  numbered  as  in  that  work. 


282  APPENDIX 

I  understand  and  speak  to  Ea,  my  lord, 

* .  .  .  my  lord,  which  thou  speakest  thus, 

I  will  respect,  I  will  perform. 
35  [But  what]  shall  I  answer  the  city,  the  people,  and  the 
elders '  ? 

Ea  openeth  his  mouth  and  speaketh  ; 

He  saith  to  me  his  servant, 

'  Man,  thus  shalt  thou  speak  to  them : 

Bel  hath  cast  me  off,  he  hateth  me  ;  therefore 
40  I  will  not  dwell  in  your  city. 

Nor  will  I  lay  on  the  soil  of  Bel  my  head ;  but 

I  will  go  down  to  the  deep,  with  Ea,  my  lord,  will  I 
dwell. 

Upon  you  will  he  pour  overwhelming  rain. 

.  .  .  birds,  .  .  .  fishes, 
45 the  harvest, 

A  time  hath  Shamash  set,  he  who  illumineth  the  dark- 
ness ; 

At  evening  shall  he  cause   heaven  to   pour   upon   you 
heavy  rain.' 

'*  As  soon  as  morning  brightened 

.* 

The  strong brought. 

On  the  fifth  day  I  drew  its  plan. 

In  KANHISA  120  cubits  arose  its  walls; 

Likewise  120  cubits  was  the  extent  of  its  top. 
60  I  drew  a  picture  of  its  front,  outlined  it. 

Urtag^ip  it  to  the  number  of  six  ; 

I  divided into  seven  parts ; 

The  inside  of  it  I  divided  into  nine  parts. 

Plugs  against  water  I  drove  within  it. 
65  I  provided  a  rudder,  and  laid  in  necessaries. 

Six  sars  of  bitumen  I  poured  on  the  outside  (i*) ; 

Three  sars  I  put  on  the  inside. 

Three  sars  of  oil  the  people  who  bore  its  sussul  f  brought ; 
•  Seven  lines  missing.  f  Something  made  of  wood  {isu). 


APPENDIX  283 

I  left  a  sar  of  oil,  which  the  sacrifices  consumed  \ 
70  Two  sars  of  oil  the  seaman  stowed  away. 

For  the  people  I  slaughtered  oxen  ; 

I  killed  lambs  daily. 

SirisJiu,  mead,  oil  and  wine 

I  gave  the  people  to  drink  like  the  water  of  the  river ; 
75  A  feast  I  made  like  the  day  of  the  new  year  ; 

I  opened  a  jar  of  unguent,  thrust  my  hand  into  it. 

In  the  month  of  great  Shamash  the  ship  was  finished. 

Because is  toilsome 

The^''/>  of  the  ship  of  (?)  KAK  MESH  ^ho\c  and  below 
is  full  (?). 
80 two-thirds  thereof. 

"  All  that  I  had  I  stowed  therein  : 
All  the  silver  I  had  I  stowed  therein  ; 
All  the  gold  I  had  I  stowed  therein  ; 
All  the  living  things  I  had  I  stowed  therein. 
85  I  embarked  in  the  ship  all  my  family  and  my  kindred  : 
Cattle  of  the  field,  beasts  of  the  field,  the  artisans,  all  of 

them,  I  embarked. 
*  A  time  hath  Shamash  set,  and 
He  who  illumineth  the  darkness  at  evening  shall  cause 

heaven  to  pour  out  heavy  rain. 
Go  into  the  ship  and  close  the  door.' 
90  That  time  arrived. 

He  who  illumineth  the  darkness  caused  heaven  to  pour 

out  heavy  rain. 
When  I  beheld  the  face  of  day, 
To  look  upon  the  day  I  was  afraid. 
I  went  into  the  ship  and  closed  my  door ; 
95  To  the  pilot  of  the  ship,  the  seaman  Puzur-bel, 
I  delivered  the  structure  with  its  contents. 

"  As  soon  as  morning  brighteneth 
There  riseth  from  the  horizon  a  dark  cloud. 
Ramman  in  the  midst  of  it  roareth ; 


284  APPENDIX 

loo  Nabu  and  Marduk  go  before, 

As  heralds  they  go  over  mountain  and  plain. 

Uragal  looseth  the  tarkulli ; 

Ninib  goeth  forth,  beginneth  the  conflict ; 

The  Anunaki  bear  torches 
105  With  whose  brightness  they  make  the  land  glow; 

Ramman's  fury  reacheth  to  heaven, 

Turneth  every  bright  thing  to  darkness. 

...  the  land  like  .  .  .  devastated. 

One  day  the  storm 

no  Swiftly  it  blew  and  the  water  .  .  .  mountains  .  -  . 

Like  a  battle  upon-  men 

One  seeth  not  another ; 

Men  are  not  recognized  in  heaven. 

The  gods  fear  the  flood  ; 
115  They  flee,  they  climb  to  the  heaven  of  Anu. 

The  gods,  like  a  pet  dog,  cower  in  kamati. 

Ishtar  crieth  like  a  woman  in  travail ; 

The  mistress  of  the  gods,  the  sweet-voiced,  mourneth : 

*  May  that  day  turn  to  clay, 
120  Because  I  in  the  assembly  of  the  gods  spoke  evil, 

When  I  spoke  evil  in  the  assembly  of  the  gods, 

To  destroy  my  men  a  conflict  decreed,  — 

Do  I  then  bear  my  men, 

That,  as  the  brood  of  fishes,  they  may  fill  the  sea  '  ? 
125  The  gods  of  the  Anunaki  weep  with  her  ; 

The  gods,  prostrated,  sit  weeping  ; 

Their  lips  are  covered  .  .  .  a  bu  ah  re  e  ti. 

"  Six  days  and  nights 
The  wind  bloweth,  the  flood,  the  storm,  overwhelmeth 
the  land. 
130  When  the  seventh   day  arriveth,   the   storm,   the  flood, 
abateth  ;  the  conflict. 
Which  it  fought  like  an  army. 

The  sea  rested,  retreated,  and  the  tempest,  the  flood, 
ceased. 


APPENDIX  285 

When  I  behold  day,  the  noise  is  stilled, 

But  all  mankind  are  turned  to  clay. 
135  When  daylight  came,  I  prayed  ; 

I  opened  the  window,  the  light  fell  upon  the  side  of  my 
face. 

I  am  crushed,  and  I  seat  myself  and  weep : 

Over  the  side  of  my  face  flow  my  tears. 

I  looked  upon  the  world,  wide-spread  was  the  sea. 
140  Twelve  leagues  distant  an  island  rose  : 

For  Mt.  Nisir  the  ship  made. 

Mt.  Nisir  held  the  ship  fast,  and  did  not  let  it  rise  : 

One  day,  a  second  day,  Mt.  Nisir,  KI  MIN  ; 

A  third  day,  a  fourth  day,  Mt.  Nisir,  etc. ; 
145  A  fifth,  a  sixth,  Mt.  Nisir,  etc. 

When  the  seventh  day  arrived, 

I  brought  forth  and  released  a  dove  ; 

The  dove  went,  it  returned; 

There  was  no  resting-place,  therefore  it  came  back. 
150  I  brought  forth  and  released  a  swallow: 

The  swallow  went,  it  returned  ; 

There  was  no  resting-place,  therefore  it  came  back. 

I  brought  forth  and  released  a  raven ; 

The  raven  went,  and,  when  it  saw  that  the  water  was  dry- 
ing up, 
155   It  ate,  ishahhi,  itarri,  but  it  did  not  come  back. 

I  sent  forth  to  the  four  winds  ;  I  offered  an  offering. 

I  placed  an  altar  on  the  top  of  the  mountain  ; 

By  sevens  vessels  I  set : 

Into  them  I  poured  cane,  cedar,  and  asu^ 
160  The  gods  smelled  the  odor; 

The  gods  smelled  the  pleasant  odor ; 

The  gods,  like  flies,  gathered  over  the  offering. 

"  As  soon  as  the  mistress  of  the  gods  arrived. 
She  held  up  the  great  necklace  that  Anu  made   for  her 
adornment : 
165  *  Ye  gods,  as  I  shall  not  forget  the  ornament  of  my  neck, 


286  APPENDIX 

So  these  days  shall  I  remember  and  not  forget  forever. 
Let  the  gods  come  to  the  altar, 
But  let  Bel  not  come  to  the  altar, 
Because  without  consultation  he  caused  a  flood, 
170  And  my  people  he  devoted  to  destruction.' 

"  As  soon  as  Bel  arrived 
And  saw  the  ship,  Bel  was  angry ; 
He  was  filled  with  wrath  at  the  gods,  the  Igigi : 

*  Hath  there  any  soul  escaped  ? 

175  Not  a  man  should  have  survived  destruction.' 
Ninib  openeth  his  mouth  and  speaketh, 
Saith  to  the  warrior  Bel, 

*  Who  but  Ea  deviseth  aught ; 
Ea  also  knoweth  every  art.' 

180  Ea  openeth  his  mouth  and  speaketh, 
Saith  to  the  warrior  Bel : 

*  Thou  counsellor  of  the  gods,  warrior, 

Why,  why,  didst   thou  without  consultation   cause   the 
flood? 

On  the  sinner  lay  his  sin, 
185  On  the  offender  lay  his  offence  ; 

Show  mercy,  lest  he  be  destroyed,  have  patience,  lest  .  . . 

Instead  of  causing  a  flood 

Let  the  lion  come  and  decimate  men  ; 

Instead  of  causing  a  flood 
190  Let  the  jackal  come  and  decimate  men ; 

Instead  of  causing  a  flood 

Let  a  famine  occur  and  the  land  .  .  . 

Instead  of  causing  a  flood 

Let  Ura  come  and  devastate  the  land. 
195   I  did  not  reveal  the  decree  of  the  great  gods ; 

1  caused  Atrahasis  to  have  a  dream,  and  the  decree  of 
the  gods  he  heard.' 

When  now  he  had  taken  a  resolution, 

Bel  boarded  the  ship. 

He  seized  my  hand  and  brought  me  forth ; 


T 

APPENDIX  287 

200  He  brought  forth  my  wife  and  caused  her  to  kneel  at  my 

side  ; 
He  turned  toward  us,  took  his  place  between  us,  blessed 

us  : 
*  Hitherto  Ut-napishtim  hath  been  a  man  ; 
Now  Ut-napishtim  and  his  wife  shall  be  like  us,  the  gods, 
And  Ut-napishtim  shall  dwell  afar  at  the  mouth  of  the 

rivers.' 
205  They  took  me  and  afar  at  the  mouth  of  the  rivers  they 

caused  me  to  dwell." 


INDEXES 


I. 


Topics  Treated. 


Analysis:  of  Gen.   xxi.-xxx.,  37;  of 

Gen.  i.-xi.,6S  ff. 
Angels  :  at  creation,  109  f. :  as  "  sons  of 

God,"    191  ;     at     the    confusion     of 

tongues,  26S. 
Anthropomorphisms :  absence  from  P, 

30  ;  prevalence  in  J,  32. 
Apostles  as  witnesses  to  the  authorship 

of  the  Pentateuch,  14  f. 
Ark,  comparative  size  of,  198. 
Article,  in  Hebrew,  5,  9. 

"  Book  of  Jashar,"  65. 

"  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh,"  65  f. 

Chronicles,  etc.,  on  the  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch,  10  ff. 

Chronology  of  the  Pentateuch  :  com- 
parison of  texts  and  versions,  187, 
276 ;  historical  value,  20  f.,  188  ff., 
275  f. 

Clean  and  unclean,  202,  218,  221. 

Composite  narratives  in  the  Pentateuch, 
19  ff.,  63  f.,  196  ff. 

Creation  :  Genesis  and  geology,  115  ff.  ; 
the  two  accounts  compared,  140. 

Critics,  schools  of,  37  ff. 

Day  in  Gen.  i.  1-  ii.  3,  100  f. 

Deuteronomic  Document  :  its  discov- 
ery, 9,  40,  41;,  49  ;  relation  to  Deuter- 
onomy, 45  ;  characteristics,  23,  34  ; 
recognition   by  de    Wette,   24 ;   age, 


39  ff.,  63  ;  composition,  45  fl. ;  rela- 
tion to  J  and  E,  51. 

Deuteronomy,  on  its  own  authorship, 
6ff.,4i  ff. 

Diet  of  primeval  man,  112,  156,  221. 

Documentary  Hypothesis :  origin  and 
history,  25  f. ;  statement,  28  ff. ;  preva- 
lence, 28, 36  ;  result  of  its  acceptance, 
66  f. 

Duplicate  narratives  in  the  Pentateuch, 
17  ff. 

Elohistic  Document :  discovery,  26,  28  ; 
characteristics,  32  f.  ;  relation  to  J, 
32,  52  f. ;  age,  51  ff.,  63;  relation  to 
D,  52  f. ;  composition,  64  ff. 

Ezekiel  and  the  Priests'  Code,  60  f. 

Ezra :  restorer  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures, 14  ;  relation  to  the  Pentateuch, 
6i  ff. 

Fall,  story  of,   its  value,  159. 

False  prophets,  44. 

Flood:    duration,    216;    value  of    the 

story,  225  f. ;  Babylonian  account  of, 

225  f.,  281  ff. 
Fragmentary  Hypothesis,  21  f. 

God  (^Elo/iim)  in  the  Pentateuch,  17, 

22,  29,  33,  96. 

Hexateuch,  use  of  the  term,  3,  54. 
Image  of  God,  no  f.,  177. 


:9o 


INDEXES 


Images:  forbidden  in  Deuteronomy, 
9  f.,  47  ;  tolerated  in  earlier  docu- 
ments, 54  f. 

Inspiration,  limitations  of,  i6. 

Jeremiah  :  familiarity  with  D,  39  ;  rela- 
tion to  P,  60. 

Jesus  and  the  Pentateuch,  14  f.,  15  f. 

Joshua,  relation  of,  to  the  Pentateuch, 
3,54. 

Light,  Hebrew  conception  of,  98  f., 
104  ff. 

Moses  :  the  growth  of  the  tradition  as- 
cribing to  him  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  4  ff.  ;  the  earliest  testi- 
mony concerning  him,  10 ;  his  place 
in  Hebrew  history,  66  f. 

Patriarchs,  longevity  of,  188  ff. 

Pentateuch :  names,  i  f.,  4,  14  f. ;  divi- 
sions, 2  f. ;  warrant  for  the  name,  3  ; 
traditional  authorship,  4  ff. ;  structure 
and  composition,  16  ff. ;  age,  36  ff. 

Priestly  Document :  characteristics, 
17  ff.,  29  ff.  ;  age,  58  ff.,  63. 

Proper  names,  transUteration  of,  iv  f. 

Prophet :  the  title,  41  ;  his  work,  43  f. ; 
types,  43  f. 


Prophets :   the    former,  i,    8  ff. ;   the 
later,  10. 


Rainfall  in  Palestine,  206. 

Second  person  in  Deuteronomy,  46  ff. 
"  Sons  of  God,"  value  of  the  story  of, 

195  f. 
Supplementary     Hypothesis :      origin, 

23  f. ;  overthrow,  27  f. 

Table  of  nations,  value  of,  264  f. 
Talmud  on  the  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, 12  f. 
Titles  of  the  Priestly  Document,  119, 

-i-n,  196,234,271. 

Tradition,  value  of,  17. 
Translation  of  Gen.  i.-xi.,  ^j-i^  ff. 

Worship,  centralization  of,  in  Deuter- 
onomy, 10,  40,  44  f.,  48  f. 

Yahweh  in  the  Pentateuch,  1 7,  22,  29, 
53,  120,  160,  176. 

Yahwistic  Document :  characteristics, 
17  ff.,  31  f.,  53  ;  relation  to  E,  32,  52  ; 
extracts  in  Gen.  x.xi.-xxx.,  37  ;  age, 
51  ff.,  63  ;  relation  to  D,  52  f. ;  com- 
position, 64  ff. 


II. 


Books  and  Authors  Cited. 

[Figures  in  parentheses  indicate  the  number  of  times  an  author  is  referred  to  on  a 
particular  page.] 


Aben  Ezra,  Com.,  96. 

Adam  and  Eve,  Book  of,  191. 

Allen  and  Sachtleben,  Across  Asia  cm 

a  Bicycle,  211. 
Arabic  Version,  82,  146,  178. 
Astruc,    Jean,     Conjectures     siir     la 

Gen'hse,  25,  27. 
Augustine,  De  Geuesi  ad  Littcram,  17, 

100. 


Baba  Bathra  ;  see  Talmud. 
Bacon,  B.  VV.,  Genesis  of  Genesis,  v, 
.  29,  T,Z,  37^  Sh  »26,  155,  160,  257,  260 ; 

JBL,   53  ;    Triple    Tradition  of  the 

Exodus,  6,  29,  33,  45,  53,  65. 
Baethgen,    Fried.,    Beitrds^e  zur   sem. 

Rcligionss;cschichte,  170,  171,  172. 
Ball,  C.  J.,  Gen.,  103  (2),  104,  112,  114, 

146,   152  (2),  157,  161,   163,  165  (3), 


INDEXES 


291 


170(2),  171,  177,  185,  192  (2),  196, 

*99>  213  (2),  214,  218,  221,  222,  22S 
(2),  251,  268  (2),  279;  Light  from 
the  East,  98  (2),  99,  102,  107,  109, 
113,  121,  123,  133,  158,  238,  245  (2), 
246  (2),  252. 

Baudissin,  W.  W.,  Studicn  zur  scm. 
Rciti^ionsgcschichtey  96,  98,  106,  120. 

Belirnian,  Georg,  Dan.,  10. 

Benzigcr,  J.,  Heb.  Archaeologie,  171, 
172,  198. 

Bereshiih  Rabba,  no,  in,  138,  143, 
167,  270. 

Berosus ;  see  Cory. 

Berry,  G.  R.,  Am.  Jour,  of  Scm.  Lan- 
guages, etc.,  192. 

Bevan,  A.  A.,  Dan.,  10, 

Bleek,  Fried.,  Afh.  Bcitrdge,  54 ;  Einl. 
in  das  A.  T.,  Eng.,  3  (2),  23. 

Bochart,  Sam.,  Geographia  Sacra,  130, 
237,  238,  258. 

Boscawen,  W.  St.  C,  The  Bible  and 
the  Monuments,  2,  106,  iiS,  159, 
16S,  225. 

Bottcher,  Fried.,  Lehrbuch,  120,  181, 
217;  Aehrenlese,  165. 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  Higher  Crit.  of  the  Hex., 
15,  17;  Mcs.  Prophecies,  231. 

Brown,  Francis,  Lex.,  114,  123,  139. 

Brugsch,  Hein.,  Persische  Reise,  128, 
130. 

Bruston,  Ch.,  Les  deux  Jchovistc,  35. 

Budde,  Karl,  Bib.  Urgeschichtc,  35, 
121,  126  (2),  135,  147,  155,  160,  164, 
169  (3X  172,  173,  174,  175  (2),  iSi, 
182,  184,  1S5,  188,  191,  192,  193, 
194,  207,  20S,  209,  212,  213,  22S, 
230  (2),  231,  232  (2),  247,  257,  271, 
273,  274;  Richt.  u.  Sam.,  3,  43, 
54- 

Calvin,  John,  Com.,  12S,  130. 
Cheyne,    T.  K.,   Enc.  Bib.,   15S,   168, 

169,   170    (2),    171,    258;    /sa.,   250; 

ZA  W,  1 98. 
Clarke,  Adani,  Com.,  167. 
Colenso,    J.    W.,    The  Pent,  and  the 

Book  of  Jos.,  24,  39. 


Conder,  C.  K.,  The  Bible  and  the 
East,  238. 

Cornill,  C.  H.,  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.,  3, 
37,45.  49,  53,  54,  57,  61,  65,  175- 

Cory,  I.  P.,  Ancient  Fragments,  102, 
108,  113,  189,  211,  217. 

Crawford,  T.  P.,  The  Patriarchal  Dy- 
nasties, 179. 

Dana,  J.  D.,  Manual,  115;  Text- 
book, 116. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  Eze.,  262. 

Dawson,  J.  W.,  Eden  Lost  and  Found, 
115,  18S,  206. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  Com.,  v,  97,  loi, 
102,  109,  no,  119,  125,  138,  142, 
146(2),  147,  150,  153,  163,  176,  179, 
181,  183,  192,  193,  194,  207,  208,  221, 
229,  231,  242,  257,  266,  270,  272, 
278. 

Dclitzscli,  Fried.,  Gesch.  Babyloniens 
u.  Assyriens,  131,  245  ;  Hebrew  and 
Assyrian,  104,  139;  Wo  lag  das 
Paradics,  120,  123,  124,  128(2),  129, 

130  (3),    131,    132    (2),    133  (3),    »58, 

165,  235,  236,  244  (2),  246  (2),  247, 
24S,  249,  259,  260,  274. 

Diet,  of  the  Bible  (Hastings),  130,  131 
(2),  133,  158,  161,  168,  172,  210,  211, 
235,  237,  243(2),  244,  251  (2),  253, 
262  (2),  263. 

Dillmann,  Aug.,  Gen.,  v,  29,  y],  log, 
no,  120,  124,  12S,  130,  132,  135,  138, 
139,  140,  146,  147  (2),  150,  160,  164, 

166,  167,  169,  170,  171,  176,  181,  185, 
192  (2),  193,  194,  199,  202,  209,  212 
(2),  216,  218,  224,  229,  231,  234,  237, 
249,  255,  264,  272;  Num.  Deu.  u. 
Jos.,  35,  36,  38  (2),  42,  48,  49,  52  (2), 
58. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  Deu.,  39,  41,  42,  43,  46 
(2),  47,  48,  253  ;  Int.  to  the  Lit.  of 
the  O.  T,  3,  29,  30,  Z2^  34,  43,  45, 
51,  52,  65  ;  Heb.  Text  of  Sam.,  152  ; 
Tenses,  120;  Studia  Biblica,  120. 

Ebers,  Georg,  Aegypten  u.  die  Biicher 
Moses,  2^1  (3),  250(3),  251  (3). 


292 


INDEXES 


Eichhorn,    J.  G.,   Einl.  in  das  A.  T., 

27. 
Encyclopedia   Biblica,    100,    130  (2), 

15S,  161,  168,  169,  170  (2),   171,  185, 

189,  225,  226,  230,  241,  244,  246,  252, 

25S,  259. 
English  Version,  4,  8,   102,   103,   107, 

114,  115,  120(2),  13S. 
Enoch,  Book  of,  1S3,  191. 
Erman,  A.,  ZAW,  251  (2). 
Eusebius  Pamphili,  PreJ>.  Evangelica, 

271. 
Ewald,    Hein,,   Gesch.  Israels,  27  (2) ; 

Heb.  Sprache,  108. 

French,  R.  V. ;  see  Lex  Mosaica. 
Fiirst,   Jul,,   Kanon  des  A.   T.,  2  (2) ; 
Lex.,  151  (2). 

Geddes,  Alex.,  Bible,  21  (2),  54. 

Gesenius,Wil.,  Gesch.  der  heb.  Sprache, 
39;  Gram.,  5,  96  (2),  97,  103,  104, 
108(2),  113,  114,  115,  122,  129,  138, 
139,  140,  144  (2),  145,  152,  162  (2), 
164,  166,  171,  173,  174,  177,  199, 
206,  207,  212,  228  (2),  229,  230. 

Ginsburg,  David,  Bib.  Hebraica,  192. 

Glaser,  Ed.,  Skizze  der  Gesch.  Ara- 
biens,  129,  130,  241,  242  (4),  243(2), 
244,  260  (3),  262  (7),  263  (2),  264, 
274  (2). 

Graf,  K.  H.,  Die  geschichtl.  Biicher 
des  A.  T.,  37. 

Greek  Version,  59,  72,  i.3),  74  (4),  75  (S), 
77  (6),  7^,  79  (3),  80,  81,  82,  83,  84 
(2),  85  (5),  86  (2),  87,  88  (3),  89  (2), 
91  (3),  92,  loi,  103  (2),  104  (2),  105, 
107,  112  (3),  113,  119,  120,  121,  131, 
136  (2),  137,  138,  139  (2),  143,  144, 
146,  150,  151,  152  (2),  153,  156,  157, 
160,  161,  164,  170,  171  (2),  172,  175, 
176(2),  186,  187,  189,  194,  197,  200, 
202  (2),  204,  205  (2),  206,  209,  210, 
211,  213,  214,  215,  218,  220,  223,  228, 
235.  236,  237,  239,  241  (3),  246,  250, 
253.  257,  260  (2),  261,  262,  268,  269, 
271,  272  (2),  273  (2),  274,  275  (3), 
276,  279,  280. 


Green,    W.    H.,    Hebraica,    36;   Heb. 

Feasts,  36  ;  Higher  Crit.  of  the  Pent.^ 

4,  5,  7,  16,  29,  36,  41 ;  Moses  and  the 

Prophets,     36,     60,    61  ;     Unity    of 

Genesis,  36, 
Gunkel,    Hermann,  Gen.,  v,   111,   135, 

146,   152,   161,    205,   268,    269,    272; 

Schdpfung  u.  Chaos,  ()()  (2),  106,  168, 

113,  118. 
Guyot,  Arnold,    Creation,  99,  107  (2), 

115. 

Halevy,  J.,  Jo7ir.  Asiatique,  242,  263. 
Harman,  H.  M.,  Intr.  to  the  Study  of 

the  Holy  Scriptures,  4,  7,  16. 
Harper,  W.  R.,  Hebraica,  36. 
Hartmann,  A.  T.,  Hist.  -krit.  Forschun- 

gen,  22. 
Haupt,     Paul,     Am.    Or.    Soc,    122; 

Sacred  Books  of  the  O.  T.,  29,  161, 
Hensler,  C.  G.,  Bcmerkungen  iib.  Pss. 

ti.  Gen.,  178. 
Herder,  J.  G.,  Spirit  of  Heb.   Poetry y 

173- 
Hobbes,  Thos.,  Leviathan,  6. 
Holzinger,   H.,  Einl.  in  den  Hex.,  3, 

29,  30,  32,  33,  34,  35»  36,  45  (2),  61, 
63,  121;  Gen.,  V,  69  (2),  119,  148, 
i5o>  154,  157,  169,  173,  181,  186, 
209,  213,  216,  219,  223,  228,  235,  240, 
249,  256,  271. 
Hommel,  Fritz,  Ancient  Heb.  Tradi- 
tion, 129,  188,  245  ;  Die.  of  the  Bible, 

131  (2). 
Hupfeld,  Herm.,  Die  Quellen  der  Gen., 
27. 

Ilgen,  C.  D.,  Die  Urkunden  desjerus. 
Tempdarchivs,  26  (2),  27,  119,  192. 

Jastrow,  Morris,  Jr.,  The  Religion  of 
Babylonia  and  Assyria,  98,  102, 
105,  107,  113,  183,  191,  225,  226,  244 
(2),  248,  267  (2). 

Jensen,  P.,  Hittiter  u.  Armenier,  275  ; 
Kosmologie,  98,  102  (2),  103,  122, 
133- 

Johns,  C.  W.  H.,  The  Expositor,  198. 


/.VDKXICS 


293 


Josephus,  Fl.,  Antiquities  of  the  Jews, 
13,  128,  130,  191,  237,  23S  (2),  25S; 
Cont.  A/ion,  13. 

Jubilees,  Book  of,  no,  134,  i.}i,  143, 
»9',  237. 

Kautzsch,  Emil,   The  Lit.  of  the  O.  T., 

60. 
Keil,  C.  F.,  £i„/.  in  das  A.  T.,  4,  7,  41, 

42,  43;  Gen.,  12S,  162,  224,  245. 
Kelle,  K.  G.,  Vorurthalsfreie  Wurdi- 

gungdcrmos.  Schriften,  23. 
Kittel,  Kud.,  History  of  the  Hebrews,  3, 

3^  3S,  42,  52  (2),  58,  65,  279  ;  Kon., 

263. 
Klostcrmann,   A.,    Sam.  Jt.  K"on.,   54  ; 

Pentateuch,  2S. 
Knobel,  A.,  Gen.,  112,  115,  250. 
Konig,   Ed.,  System  der  hcb.  Syntax, 

143- 

Kosters,  W.  H.,  Herstel  van  Israel  in 
het  pers.  Tijdvak,  63. 

Kuenen,  Abram,  Origin  and  Composi- 
tion of  the  Hex.,  34,  35,  n,  38,  46, 
47,  49,  55,  61  (2)  ;  Theol.  Tijdschrift, 
192. 

de  Lagarde,  Paul,  Onom.  Sacra,  198  ; 
Oricntalia,  170. 

Le  Conte,  Jos.,  Elements  of  Geology, 
189. 

Lenormant,  Frang.,  Beginnings  of  His- 
tory, III,  135,  138,  158  (2),  170  (3), 
^73)  '75>  181,  182,  211,  216. 

Lex  Mosaic  a,  16,  36,  60,  61. 

Luther,  Martin,  Gen.,  151  ;  Version, 
161. 

Maspero,   G.  C.  C,  Receuil  de   Tra- 

vaux,  238  (2), 
McCurdy,    J.   F.,    History,   Prophecy, 

and  the  Monuments,  131,  133,  232, 

246  (2),  247  (2),  248,   252,  253,  259, 

279  (2). 
Mdnant,    Joach.,    Annales   des    Rois 

d'Assyrie,  249. 
Meyer,   Ed.,    Gesch.   des  Alterthums, 

13^   234  (3),   235  (4),   236  (2),   237, 


239(3),  241,   247,   250,  251,  257  (2), 

25S,  259,  261,  266,  279. 
Mitchell,  II.  G.,  Am.,  205,   246;  JUL, 

46,  47,  48. 
Moore,  G.  F.,  JBL.,  64  ;  Jud.,  3,  42, 

55,  »93,  253. 
Movers,  F.  C,  Die  Phdnicier,  238. 
Murphy,  J.  G.,  Gen.,  99  (2),   105,   109, 

'37.    "44,    >79,    »88,   190,    191,    209, 

224. 

Nestle,     E.,    Marginalien     u.    Mate- 

rielien,  152,  222. 
Ncildekc,  Theodor,  Unterss.  sur  Kritik 

des  A.  T.,  1 85. 
Nowack,  W.,  Klein.  Propheten,  61. 

Olshausen,  J.,  Beit  rage  zur  Kritik  des 
iiberliefcrten  Textes  im  Buche  Gen., 
138,  214. 

Onkclos,   Targum,  86,  161,  211,  238. 

Origcn,  Cont.  Celsum,  15. 

Ovid,  Met.,  112. 

Oxford  Hexateuch  (Carpenter,  Har- 
ford-Battersby,   and    others),  v,   29, 

30,  32,  33  (2),  34,  35,  39,  45,  5^  (2), 
52,  57,  61,  63,  64,  175. 

Peiser,     Felix,     Zeitsch.   fur    Assyri- 

ologie,  131. 
Petrie,  W.  M.  F.,  Hist,  of  Et^ypt,  244, 

2?4  (2). 
Philo  Juda;us,   Works  {^ohv),  13,  no, 

191. 
Piepenbring,    Ch.,     Theology    of  the 

O.  T.,  120,  135,  137. 
Pliny,  Hist.  Naturalis,  130. 
Pressel,  W.,  Stimmen  der  Volkcr,  12S, 

130. 
Ptolemy,  Geographia,  242. 

Ragozin,  Z.  A,,  Assyria,  123,  234,  235 
(2),  236,  245,257  ;  Chaldea,  257,  265, 
2r>6,  267 ;  Media,  etc.,  258. 

Kashi,  Com.,  96,  160,  191. 

Kask,  K.  C,  Ilgen's  Zeitsch.  fiir  hist. 
Theologie,  17S. 

von  Kaumer,  Karl,  Pal'astina,  12S. 


294 


IXDEXES 


Kawlinson,     George,    Ancient    Egypt, 

Reuss,  Ed.,  Z7  \  Das  A.   T.,   141,  161  ; 

Gesch.  dcs  A.  T.,  49. 
Rice,  W.  N.  ;  see  Dana. 
Riehm,   Ed.,   Eint.  in  das  A.  T.,  41  ; 

Handworterbuch  des  bib.  Altertums, 

172,  198. 
Rogers,    R.  W.,    Hist,    of   Babylonia 

and  Assyria,  234,  235,  236  (2),  245, 

246,    247,    249,    257    (2),     266,    267, 

279  (2). 
Rosenmiiller,  E.  F.  K.,  Ha?idbuch  der 

bib.  Altcrthuviskunde,  130. 
Ryle,  E.  F.,  Early  Narratives  of  Gen., 

118,  159. 

Samaritan  Pentateuch,  75  (2),  76,  'j'j 
(2),  ^%,  79,  80,  81,  z-s,  84,  85  (4),  86 
(4),  88  (3),  89  (2),  91  (2),  105,  108, 
112(2),  121,  128,  129(2),  136,  137, 
138,139(2),  144,  146,  151,  152(2), 
155,  161,  163,  165,  175,  176,  181,  182, 
183  (2),  184,  186,  187,  196,  200  (2), 
202  (2),  203,  204,  205  (2),  206,  207, 
210,  213,  217,  220,  223,  233,  236  (2), 
239,  244,  256  (2),  259,  260,  261,  262 
(3),  269,  271,  272,  273,  274  (2),  275 
(2),  276,  278  (2),  279,  280  (3). 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  Hibbert  Lectures,  168, 
169,     170;     Races    of  the    O.     T., 

234- 

Schrader,  Eberh.,  Einl.  in  das  A.  T., 
54  ;  Keilitischriften  u.  das  A.  T.,  98, 
118,  120,  124,  158,  159,  162,210,211, 
225  (Eng.),  237,  243,  246,  247,  248 
(2),  254  (3),  258,  277,  279 ;  Keilin- 
schriftl.  Bibliothek,  98  (2),  99,  102, 
107,  109,  113,  121,  123,  129,  133,  183, 
191,  198,  199,  206,  207,  211,  212,  213, 
216,  218,  220,  224,  234  (2),  235  (2), 
23^>,  237,  238  (9),  243,  244,  245  (4), 
246  (5),  247,  248  (5),  249,  253,  254 
(3)»  258,  259,  260  (2),  262,  267,  270 
(3),  274,  279,  281. 

Schultz,  Herm.,  Alttestamcntl.  Theo- 
lofiie,  141. 

Siegfried  u.  Stade,  Lex.,  228. 


Smith,  George,  Assyrian  Discoveries^ 

246  ;   The  Athenceum,  270. 
Smith,   G.  A.,    Histor.    Geography  of 

the  Holy  Land,  255. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  The  O.  T.  in  the  fewish 

Church,  49,  60,  61,  65,  66 ;  Religion 

of  the  Semites,  222  (2). 
Spinoza,    Benedict,    Traotatus    Theo- 

logico-politicuSf  21  (2). 
Spurrell,  G.  J.,  Gen.,  145. 
Stade,  Bernh.,  De  Populo  favan,  250  ; 

ZAW,  69,  168,  175. 
Stahelin,   J.  J.,  Kritische   Untersuch- 

ungen,  54  ;  Einleitung  in  das  A.  7"., 

54- 
Steuernagel,  Carl,  Deu.  it.  fos.,  50  (2), 

175,  176. 
Strack,  H.L.,  Gen.,  112,  114,  119,  150, 

163,  165,  197. 
Syriac    Version,  T>>,   75  (2),   11  (3)>  78, 

80,  81, 83,  84,  85  (3),  86  (2),  88  (2),  89 

(2),  92,  94,   loi.  III,  112,   139,  143, 

144,  149,  151,  152,  T65,  175,  178,  197, 

200,   202  (2),  204,    206,  209,  2U,  213, 
218. 

Talmud,  12,  133. 

Targum  to  Ezekiel,  238. 

Tatian,  Diatessaron,  63. 

TertuUian,    Adv.    Hermogenem,     17; 

Adv.  Marcioncm,  191. 
Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs^ 

191. 
Thoms,    W.    J.,    Human   Longevity, 

188. 
Thomson,  W.  M.,  The  Land  and  the 

Book,  255  (2). 
Tiele,    C.    P.,    Babylonisch-assyrische 

Geschichte,  246. 
Torrey,  C.  C,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  63. 
Tosaphoth,  133. 

Toy,  C.  H.,  Eze.,  250  ;  fBL.,  118. 
Tristram,  H.  B.,  Land  of  Israel,  255  ; 

Nat.  Hist,  of  the  Bible,  198. 
Tuch,  Fried.,  Gen.,  25,  120,  163,  193. 

Umbreit,    F.   W.  C,   Stud.  u.   Krit., 
161. 


lA'DKXES 


295 


Valeton,  J.  J.  P.,  7.  A  W,  200. 
Vater,  J.  S.,  Com.,  22. 
Vergil,  Gcorspca,  112. 
yu/^i^(i/g,  31,  75,  77  (2),  81,  86,  129,  136, 
139,  151,  205,  213,  241. 

Weber,  Ferd.,  PaUisiinische  Theologie, 

147. 
Wellhausen,  Jul.,   Comp.  dcs  Hex.,  37 

(2),  43,  45,  53,  '92,  23',  244,  256(2); 

Israelii,    u.  j'iid.   Gesch.,  62  ;  Gesch. 

Israels,  43,  60,  61,  126,  277;  Skizxen 

u.  Vorarbeiten^  10. 


Westphal,    Alex.,    Sources  du   Penta- 

tcuque,  46. 
de  Wcttc,  W.   M.  L.,    Dis.  critico-exe- 

getita,  24  ;  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.,  34. 
\Vildclx»cr,  G.,  Letterkunde  des  ouden 

Verbonds,  3. 
Winckler,    Hugo,    Mittheilungen    der 

vorderas.  Geseilscha/t,  238  (2),  241, 

Zeydncr,  H.,  ZAVV,  161. 
Zunz,  L.,  ZDMG,  39. 


III. 

Isolated  Passages  Explained. 


Gen. 

xxxvi.  2 

Ex. 

xvii.  14 

xxi.  13 

x.xxiv.  2S 

Num. 

xiii.  33 

Jos. 

xi.  3      . 

Jud. 

iii.  3      . 

viii.  27 

I  Sam 

ii.  22       . 

X.  25     . 

2  Sam 

xvii.  3  . 

I  Kgs. 

viii.    4 

253 

5 

5» 
5f. 
194 

253 

253 

55 

59 

9 

152 

59  f. 


I  Kgs. 

viii.  53 

X.  22     . 

Isa. 

ix.  15/14 

xlvi.  10 

Ixvi.  19 

Jer. 

vii.  22  . 

xxv.  20  f. 

xlvi.  9    . 

Eze. 

XX  vii.  10 

XXX.  5 

Cant. 

vii.  11/10 

54 
263 

44 

96 

250 

60 

260 

250 

250 

250 

I52f 


296 


INDEXES 


IV 


n-rs- 


,...277 
, . . .122 
....123 
.96, 120 

176 

258 

....139 


iriD^i? 

TOP2-tS 

n^^s 

nsb^^s 254,256 

bns 2^9 

-15^5 42 

n^irs-1.5 96 

192 

162 

164 

163 

169 

171 

192 

120 

171 


Hebrew  Words  Discussed 

(i)nb3 "4 

^l?2:p 230 

br^'b 172 

"np^ 1^9/ 

bs;^n^ 169/- 

bscp^n^ 169/ 

nbt^JiriT^ ^^4 

n>---- 185 

nttr^2 172 

''•^;?v 

HT^ 

l-l'^y 

D^ttSP. 

nb^ 

rb^ 

n??!)"? 

(in)2p 

ri2 

lyp; 

vn 

Pi^ttj 150/ 

nntt7 ^97 

ntp -176 

bn^n ^72 


"n^DD 

^?: 

rT 

nin": 

''?'>^ 

-tV 244,  260 

-rb^ '74 

nf:^ 230,232 

^^> 181 

bb 144 


.261 
.169 
.169 
.250 
.170 
.138 
.132 
.224 
.162 
.181 
.210 


Tior^m^;?! 


52/ 


Elecirotyped  and  printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  dr*  Co. 
Cambridge^  Mass.,  U.  S.  A.     . 


Date  Due 

"^^  l9  'AQ 

Ali^h'S!^ 

^G29  55 

ii 

* 

■     -^^^              -.- 



^          "■- 

t 

